Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Cambridge Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Welwyn Garden City Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Bournemouth, Poole, and Christchurch Electricity Bill [Lords],

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords],

Port of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Bridlington and Wells) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Oxford) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Paignton) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Coatbridge Drainage Order Confirmation Bill,

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SITUATION.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the House the latest information he has as to the situation in India?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give the House the latest information regarding the political situation in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) will allow me to offer him my congratulations. During the past week attempts were made by Congress to hold conferences in several places. The other main feature of civil disobedience activity has been the distribution of seditious pamphlets. In Bombay City communal rioting has ceased but feeling is still very tense. The total casualties to midnight of the 3rd June numbered 171 killed and 1,908 injured.

RAILWAY STAFF RETRENCHMENTS.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the present position in regard to the negotiations between the railway authorities and the railway workers' trade unions in India on the question of the dismissal of lower grade railway employés in effecting retrenchment?

Sir S. HOARE: I have just been informed by the Government of India that they propose to issue a communique announcing their conclusions on the report of the court of inquiry which was set up to investigate certain matters connected with staff retrenchments on the Indian railways. I expect to receive copies of the communique by Air Mail and I shall send one to the hon. Member.

POLICE ACTION, MADRAS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will inform the House of the result of the inquiry instituted by the Government into the beating by the police of Mr. Subba Rao and Mr. Ramaswami who had been picketing in the Rattan bazaar in Madras last March?

Sir S. HOARE: I am circulating the statement issued by the Government of Madras.

Following is the statement:

Government have examined the record of inquiry held by the Commissioner of Police, Madras, into an allegation of use of excessive force in the dispersal of an unlawful assembly in Madras City on the 25th February, 1932, when two persons,
named O. P. Ramaswami and K. Subba Rao received injuries. Including these two persons, the Commissioner examined in all 27 witnesses, of whom 17 are non-officials. It appears from the evidence that the picketers had collected a crowd which numbered about 200 by the time the police arrived, that this crowd was obstructing traffic and that many of its members were noisy and excited. Government are therefore satisfied that the inspector who was in charge of the police party, consisting of two sergeants and three constables, was justified in ordering the crowd to disperse as being an assembly likely to disturb public tranquillity and in dispersing, by force, those members of the crowd who did not move away and had shown a disposition to defy his order, including the two persons mentioned, who according to their own statements had come to the place with the deliberate intention of breaking the law. Government recognise that in the dispersal of unlawful assemblies, when rapid decisions must be made on the spur of the moment, it is difficult for the officer in command to regulate the exact amount of force requisite to effect the dispersals and that allowance must be made for honest errors of judgment when there is no question of personal vindictiveness.

Government, however, consider that the beating of the two persons mentioned above was unduly prolonged and in excess of the requirements of the situation. The inspector who was in charge of the police party must be held responsible for what in Government's opinion was a serious error of discretion, but there is no suggestion of any personal vindictiveness on his part or on the part of any other member of the police party, since two persons were personally unknown to them.

The Commissioner of Police has already transferred the inspector and in the circumstances of the case, Government have directed the Commissioner to inform him of their disapproval of his conduct, in so far as he allowed force to be employed in excess of requirements of the situation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ELECTION.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India
what wag the total electorate and the percentage of the electorate that polled in the last general election to the legislative assembly in India?

Sir S. HOARE: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate it.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what the general percentage was throughout India?

Sir S. HOARE: Approximately 26 per cent.

Sir A. KNOX: Has the right hon. Gentleman any hope that the thousands of new candidates who are to stand next year will be able to drag a larger percentage of the tens of millions of new voters to the poll?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any improved facilities are to be afforded before a future election of the kind takes place?

Sir S. HOARE: I think that the hon. Member had better study the Franchise report. He will see certain suggestions made in it bearing upon the point he has just asked me about. As regards the question of my hon. and gallant Friend, one goes on hoping.

Sir ERNEST BENNETT: Is it not a fact that in the North-West Frontier Province the vote rose to 70 per cent. of the electorate?

Sir S. HOARE: It is certainly a great deal higher than the figure I have here.

Folio wing is the reply:

At the last general election to the Legislative Assembly, in 1930, the total electorate was 1,212,172. Of these 468,491 were called upon to record their votes in contested constituencies. The number of votes polled was 124,853, representing approximately 26 per cent. of the voters who were actually called upon to vote.

COMMUNAL QUESTION.

Sir A. KNOX: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can give any idea of the lines on which the Government mean to settle the communal question in India?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir; I cannot anticipate the Government's decision.

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have been invited to send a representative to the proposed International Conference on commodity prices which is shortly to be convened in London?

Sir S. HOARE: As was stated on the 1st June by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the matter has not yet advanced beyond an informal and entirely preliminary stage.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the reply of the Government of the United States of America that they are in favour of an early conference under Anglo-American auspices on the subject of world trade, invitations are being issued to other Powers to participate in such a conference?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN FFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The conversations which have taken place on this question have not yet reached the stage where the issue of invitations to a conference can be considered. As I explained in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the 1st of June, the matter is still in an entirely preliminary stage. I have explained the whole matter to the representatives in London of the other five Powers who with ourselves issued the invitation to the Lausanne Conference and have invited their views upon it. The question cannot be carried further until these views have been received and considered.

Captain MACDONALD: How many of the five Powers have replied?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think any reply has been received. This is a very serious matter and it is only two or three days since they were communicated with.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it a fact that the United States Government have accepted?

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity of defining more closely what is meant by the words "subject of world trade"? Is he aware that it is
very nebulous and that we do not know yet what it means?

Sir J. SIMON: It is partly for that reason that we have communicated with other Governments.

Colonel GRETTON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if it is intended that the International Economic Conference shall take place in London prior to the Empire Conference at Ottawa, and if an assurance can be given that no engagements or agreements will be made with foreign Powers which will limit or curtail the full liberty of the Government to discuss and make Empire agreements at the Ottawa Conference?

The LORD PRESIDENT: of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): As explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the 1st June, the matter has not advanced beyond an informal and entirely preliminary stage, and, until the views of the Governments chiefly concerned have been received, there can be no question of fixing any time or place for the conference. The Government retain the fullest liberty of action at Ottawa.

Colonel GRETTON: Do I gather from the reply that it is the intention of the Government to keep the fullest liberty of action at Ottawa at any conference which may be held?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, as has always been the case.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a paragraph in the newspapers stating that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister were not seeing eye to eye on this matter of the Economic Conference, and can he say whether there is any truth in it

Mr. BALDWIN: Nothing that I had said would lead to such an inference, and, if it did, it would be a false inference.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Has the Lord President of the Council any statement to make upon the subject of the Economic, or monetary, Conference? A statement was made in answer to a question that my right hon. Friend would make a statement to-day.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have had no notice of that question.

HAMBURG WATERWORKS LOAN.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the result of his inquiries made to the German Government respecting the Hamburg Waterworks in relation to the loan raised here by the city of Hamburg?

Sir J. SIMON: The Hamburg administrative authorities deny that there is any foundation whatever for the reported negotiations referred to in my hon. Friend's question on this subject on the 30th of May last.

EAST AFRICA (ABYSSINIAN RAIDS).

Captain CAZALET: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many raids into British territory from Abyssinia have taken place since the publication of the White Book (Cmd. 3217) in 1928; and whether it is proposed to issue, before the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations, a further Government Paper upon the subject?

Sir J. SIMON: I am circulating in the Official Report particulars of the raids referred to. As at present advised, I do not think a further White Paper will be necessary.

Captain CAZALET: Can my right hon. Friend say whether that account includes details of the raid which took place a few months ago in the south-east territory?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. It will be found to include it.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the information contain anything about the operations of the Sudan Slavery Patrol and the number of casualties which took place in consequence?

Sir J. SIMON: I would ask my hon. Friend to wait for the answer in the report. It is a very full one, and I think that it will give him the information about which he is asking.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I could not quite hear the supplementary answer to my hon. and gallant Friend. Will full information be given in the answer about the raid which is said to have occurred in March of this year?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend will find that the answer includes information about it.

Following are the particulars:

With the exception of two raids into Kenya in 1929, particulars of which were given in the House by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time in reply to a question on the 13th November, 1929, from the information available it appears that there has been no organised raiding, properly so called, into the British territory since 1928, although spasmodic frontier disturbances due to inter-tribal feuds have taken place on certain parts of the Kenya-Abyssinia frontier.

A serious raid, however, into the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan took place last March when a party of Abyssinian Anuak, assisted by a few Sudanese Anuak, and numbering approximately 600 in all, attacked the Beir tribe and penetrated some 50 miles into the Upper Nile Province. The Beir losses were 27 men killed, 27 women and 55 children captured, and some 800 head of cattle taken. Immediate representations were made by His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa to the Abyssinian Government, who agreed to send urgent instructions to the Abyssinian local authorities to investigate the raid and take measures for the release of the captives and the punishment of the raiders. The Abyssinian Government also agreed to establish a new frontier post in the Baro salient in the endeavour to hold these unruly and largely un-administered tribes in check. It is not yet known what effect has been given to the requests of His Majesty's Minister for the release of the captives and the punishment of the raiders. Arrangements have, however, been made for representatives of the Sudan and Abyssinian Governments to meet at Gambeila to-day to settle the organisation of punitive and preventive measures.

SUDAN (GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S COUNCIL).

Sir A. KNOX: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will recommend the cancellation of the new allowance of £250 a year granted to members of the Governor-General's Council in the Sudan in 1928, in order to
restore some part of the cut of 28 per cent. on pay and allowances inflicted recently on company clerks in the southern provinces of the Sudan?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.

Sir A. KNOX: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these unfortunate clerks in the Sudan have been reduced £55 a year?

Sir J. SIMON: My answer to the original question must still be in the negative.

Sir A. KNOX: Is. it not most unfair that these people who live in Khartum with all the amenities there should get this high rate of pay and not stand a fair proportion of the cuts?

Sir J. SIMON: Even if the hon. and gallant Gentleman were right, surely he does not suggest that an adjustment which may be right in respect of one set of people should be altered because of the inequality which he now raises.

Sir A. KNOX: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there ought to be a fair adjustment all through the Sudan?

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the difficulties which are being placed in the way of the Lytton Commission in obtaining evidence from all parties in Manchuria; and whether any protest is to be made in this connection?

Sir J. SIMON: I have seen reports in the Press to this effect, but I have no official confirmation. The Commission is, of course, an organ of the League of Nations and I am not aware that the Commission have suggested to the League of Nations that any protest should be made in this connection.

Mr. BURNETT: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause a report to be obtained, through His Majesty's Minister in China-, as to the cessation of the boycott and anti-Japanese agitation in Shanghai?

Sir J. SIMON: I have asked His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires to furnish a report.

CHILE (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Read-Admiral SUETER: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nominal total in sterling of the defaulted obligations of the Chilean Government issued in London?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not prepared to make an official estimate, but, as was explained on the 23rd November last in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers), in respect of Mexican Government securities, my hon. and gallant Friend can obtain considerable, though not necessarily complete, information by application to the Council of Foreign Bondholders.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to report what progress has been made by the Chilean Government towards meeting their liabilities in respect of loans borrowed from British investors?

Sir J. SIMON: So far as I am aware no progress has been made since the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. A. W. Russell) on the 7th April last.

Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps in order to secure some possible settlement of these claims even at a remote time?

Sir J. SIMON: The Foreign Office is in close touch with the Council of Foreign Bondholders, and I know that the council have formed a Chilean Committee expressly for the purpose.

Mr. TURTON: Can the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs say whether he can confirm or deny any of the rumours which are going around about this question since the change of Government in Chile on Saturday?

Sir J. SIMON: I must ask for notice of that question.

GERMAN REPARATION PAYMENTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has re-
ceived intimation of the inability of the German Government to pay further instalments of reparations?

Sir J. SIMON: The attitude of the German Government on the payment of reparations has been made clear in various public statements, notably that of the late Chancellor on the 11th May.

Mr. LAMBERT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that instead of the discussions at Lausanne being confined to war reparations they should be concentrated on the economic problems, and the price of commodities?

Sir J. SIMON: As already announced, the Terms of Reference for the Conference at Lausanne have been fixed in agreement with all the Governments concerned, but I think it is certain that the other aspects mentioned by the right hon. Member will not be outside the purview of the Conference.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will it serve any useful purpose to discuss reparations at Lausanne in the present state of Germany?

LENA GOLDFIELDS (ARBITRAL AWARD).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now inform the House as to the proposals of the Russian Soviet Government for the payment of the arbitral award of approximately £13,000,000 in favour of Lena Goldfields, Limited?

Sir J. SIMON: The latest proposal made by the Soviet Authorities was for a settlement at £1,000,000—a proposal which the company is not prepared to entertain.

Sir W. DAVISON: May I ask what steps the Government propose to take now? Does he not realise that so long as the Soviet Government have the benefit of the British market for their Five-Year Plan and that we give them credit for their purchases while we pay them in cash, they are not likely to make any proposal?

Sir J. SIMON: I can assure the hon. Member that all those considerations are very much in the mind of the Government.

Sir A. KNOX: When shall we have some action?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CHEESE IMPORTS (MARKING).

Sir C. CAYZER: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the reasons for delay in the introduction of Orders to provide for the marking of imported cheese; and by what bodies the introduction of such Orders is being opposed?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, prescribes the procedure which must be followed before an Order can be made requiring the marking of any class of imported goods with an indication of origin. In the first place, it is required that an application for the making of such an Order shall be made to the appropriate Department by substantially representative interests. An application for the marking of imported cheese was received by my Department on 3rd June, and will receive careful consideration.

POULTRY DISEASE.

Mr. ATTLEE: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a poultry farm, styling itself the largest producer of day-old chicks in the country, with an annual sale of approximately 1,000,000 chicks, is affected with the disease of bacillary white diarrhœa, and that complaints are being made that persons all over the country have received diseased chicks and have in no case been given adequate compensation by the said poultry farmers; and whether he will consider taking action with a view to preventing the spread of this disease throughout the country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned in the first part of the question. I have no statutory powers to control the sale of poultry: but I have recently issued to all Local Authorities for their consideration and adoption the draft of a scheme on a voluntary basis, designed to promote the supply of stock which is healthy and, in particular, free from bacillary white diarrhœa. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the scheme.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry from his experts in the county of Yorkshire in regard to this matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member will send me any information, I shall be prepared to inquire.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.

Mr. TURTON: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications have been made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, in respect of agricultural products; how many of these applications have been granted; and how many have been refused?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Applications have been made and referred to the Standing Committee in respect of 10 classes of agricultural products. With one exception Orders were recommended and made.

Mr. TURTON: What was the one exception?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The one exception as with regard to oats. That was the only one that has been turned down.

CREDITS.

Captain MACDONALD: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that since 1st January, 1931, some banks have taken advantage of the provisions of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, to obtain charges upon farming stock and produce in respect of old loans contracted before the passing of that Act; and whether, as one object of the Agricultural Credits Act is defeated by this development which secures the banks concerned as preference creditors to the exclusion of all others except the landlord, he will consider taking some remedial action in the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Some cases of the kind to which my hon. and gallant Friend calls attention have been brought to my notice. I do not feel, however, that legislative action, even if it were practicable, would be in the best interests of the agricultural community.

Captain MACDONALD: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot take legislative action, will he take Departmental action to bring to book the people who are contravening the Act?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, I do not think it is a matter of contravention. So far as I know, there is no contravention, but, if the hon. Member has any suggestions to make, I should be glad to consider them.

Strawberries (Canning).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the extension of the period in which duty will be payable on imported strawberries has involved cancellation of arrangements by English canners for the canning of French strawberries from 17th June, which would have provided seasonal employment for thousands of workers; whether any representation has been made to his Department; and will he state the terms of his reply?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have received certain representations with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member. My reply to such representations is to the effect that, in view of the lateness of the strawberry crop this season, the extension of the period during which a duty of 6d. per lb. will be payable on imported foreign strawberries was rendered necessary in order to give effect to the intentions of the Horticultural Products Act to protect the early home market against foreign producers with climatic advantages.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the imported strawberries would have been wholly canned and that he has done an injustice to the importers and the thousands of workpeople, who, obviously, will not procure employment?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I see no reason why British strawberries should not be canned.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the English strawberries will not be available and that by no stretch of the imagination can the canners be employed?

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: Is it not a fact that the extension of the period will enable the English strawberries to be canned, and that they are of better quality than the foreign?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope so.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

PROFIT.

Mr. RAIKES: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General the approximate amount of the postal profits, as calculated in the commercial accounts of the Post Office, for the year ended 31st March, 1932?

THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The provisional commercial accounts for 1931–32 show a surplus of £10,826,000 on the Postal Service, a surplus of £557,000 on the telephone service and a loss on the telegraph service of £828,000. The surplus on the three services combined is thus £10,555,000. These figures are, of course, subject to adjustment and to audit.

Mr. DENMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to put the telegraph service on a profitable basis?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. This year the telegraph deficit is reduced by £180,000.

POSTAGE STAMPS (RECEIPTS).

Mr. HOPE: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General why postmasters are prohibited from giving receipts for purchases of postage stamps to a lesser value than £25; and whether, with a view to obviating the inconvenience in auditing the books of business firms and the prevention of possible abuses, he will consider amending the regulations so as to bring the practice into conformity with that obtaining in the case of health and unemployment insurance stamps?

Sir K. WOOD: I am making inquiries into the matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, SHEFFIELD.

Mr. BOULTON: 32.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if the proposed new Employment Exchange on the site now being cleared in West Street, Sheffield, is to be proceeded with; and, if so, at what cost?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Yes, the contract has been let. The estimated cost of the building, which will also provide workshop and store accommodation for my Department, is £35,290.

RICHMOND PAKE (HORSE RIDING).

Colonel GOODMAN: 34.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, before arriving at any final decision regarding restrictions on horse riding in Richmond Park, he will receive a repre-
sentative deputation from those who are accustomed to take exercise in the park in this manner, with a view to reaching agreement acceptable to all interested parties?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am in communication with Lord Mildmay of Flete, the President of the National Horse Association, and have offered to receive a deputation before coming to any final decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

OFFICE OF WORKS.

Colonel GRETTON: 35.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the total number of the staff employed in the Office of Works in 1913 and the total of their salaries; and what was the number of the staff in 1931 and the total of their salaries in the latter year?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The number of non-industrial employés recorded as being on the staff of the Office of Works on the 1st May, 1913, was 655, and the total of their salaries £145,834. The number of non-industrial employés on the 1st October, 1931, was 3,138, and the total of their salaries and wages £876,648. The numbers are, however, in no way comparable, as the 1913 records do not contain particulars of the employés in many grades which were then classed as industrial, but are now classed as non-industrial. The number employed in October, 1931, has already been reduced by 117 and reductions are still proceeding.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many industrial people are employed?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should like to have notice of that question. They are scattered all over the country.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the comparative figures for 1913 and 1931?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been trying to get out the comparative figures this morning. When the reorganisation took place under Lord Melchett, large classes of employés who had been in one category appeared in another, and it means going through individual names. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me
time, I will try to get the comparative figures, but it is extremely difficult.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that in a week or 10 days' time he will be able to work out the comparative figures?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, that is what I mean.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: To what extent is this increase in staff due to the building of new employment exchanges lake the one in Sheffield?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is partly due to a lot of new work like the building of new employment exchanges and to the preservation of ancient monuments.

STAFFING.

Sir C. CAYZER: 46.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will have inquiry made in the case of all Government Departments in which there are two or more senior officials of the same grade performing similar functions, with a view to ascertaining whether the services of one or more of such senior officials could be dispensed with?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I do not quite understand the proposal of my hon. Friend. The correlation of numbers of staff and requirements of work is a primary duty of administration which must be, and is, systematically and continuously performed. I see no need for a sporadic inquiry of the kind apparently suggested.

Sir C. CAYZER: Will the right hon. and gallant Member ask for a return from Government Departments showing the precise nature of the duties which are being performed by higher officials in order to ascertain whether there is any unnecessary duplication?

Major ELLIOT: No, Sir. I do not think such a result would be obtained by a return of the nature suggested.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. and gallant Member sufficient power at present to effect real economies in the reduction of staffs?

Major ELLIOT: Power in any case comes by pressure from this House on the Treasury.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Would the right hon. and gallant Member like some more pressure?

Major ELLIOT: Informed pressure of the kind so often exercised by the hon. Member is always welcome.

Salaries and Bonus.

Mr. DENMAN: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that confidential proposals relating to wages and salaries of civil servants which the Government have submitted to the Whitley Council are being subjected to public denunciation; and whether, with a view to their more adequate consideration, he will have them published?

Major ELLIOT: I am aware that objections were raised to the Government's proposals for consolidating Civil Service salaries and bonus. The whole matter is now under the consideration of the Government, but it is not yet possible to make any further statement on the subject.

BKITISH LEGATION, PEKING.

Dr. LEECH: 33.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what is the cost of maintaining the buildings and furnishings of the British Legation at Peking?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The cost of maintaining the various buildings and furnishings of the British Legation at Peking is approximately £1,600 and £200 per annum, respectively.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Mr. MAITLAND (for Sir WILFRID SUGDEN): 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of open competition candidates engaged in his Department for the clerical class since 1st January, 1932, and the number of female writing assistants for the same period?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): None, Sir.

ROYAL NAVY (INVALIDED RATINGS).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 36.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of boy ratings of all branches of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines who were invalided during the year 1931, and the
number in the same period who were invalided with tuberculosis, heart complaints and kidney trouble?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The number of boy ratings of all branches of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines who were invalided during the year 1931 was 54; the numbers in the same period who were invalided with pulmonary tuberculosis, heart complaints and kidney trouble were 3, 12 and 2 respectively.

Sir B. FALLE: 37.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of naval ratings invalided during the year 1931 and the number during this period whose invaliding disability was considered to be attributable to service; and the number of naval ratings invalided during this period with tuberculosis and the number awarded disability pensions for this disability?

Lord STANLEY: The number of naval ratings (including Royal Marines) invalided during the year 1931 was 888, and the number whose disability was considered to be attributable to the service was 193. The number invalided during that period with pulmonary tuberculosis was 156, and in 117 of these cases pensions were granted on the attributable scale.

POOR LAW CHILDREN, BEDFORDSHIRE.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Bedford County Council have dispensed with several cottage homes for Poor Law children and collected them into Briar Patch House; that the county council have enlarged Briar Patch House against the recommendation of the Hitchin Guardians Committee, and that the chairman of the committee resigned in consequence; and if he approves of the policy of removing children from cottage homes into large buildings?

Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part, my right hon. Friend is aware that the Hertfordshire County Council are improving the children's home known as "Briar Patch," but no increase in the number of children
to be accommodated is involved, and the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise. My right hon. Friend has no knowledge of any disagreement on the part of any guardians committee.

LOCAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 47.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, as a supplement to the estimate of local rates set forth in the financial statement, he can state the estimated aggregate expenditure of the local authorities during the financial year ended 31st March, 1932, defrayed out of rates and parliamentary grants of all kinds; and, if for comparison, he will give the corresponding figure for the year ended 31st March, 1914?

Major ELLIOT: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the importance of these figures, can the hon. and gallant Member read them to the House?

Following is the answer:

The receipts in the year ending 31st March, 1914, from (a) Rates and (b) Exchequer Grants out of which the expenditure of local authorities in England and Wales and Scotland, not met from other specific receipts, was defrayed, were (a) £79,694,000 and (b) £25,608,000 respectively, making an aggregate expenditure of £105,302,000. The corresponding figure for receipts from rates only for the year ending the 31st March, 1932, is estimated at approximately £165,000,000, as shown in the Financial Statement (1932–33). The final figures for receipts from Exchequer Grants for that year are not yet available, but the-total, including grants from the Road Fund, is estimated to be approximately £153,000,000. The aggregate expenditure for 1931–32 is therefore estimated at approximately £318,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORT REGULATIONS.

Mr. MITCHESON: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
whether he will so amend the import regulations imposed by His Majesty's Customs that, in future, one simplified form may replace Form C. 105 and No. 107 Sale Form and thus avoid duplication and waste of time and give the importer the opportunity of passing an entry on the day of a ship's arrival?

Major ELLIOT: Under the existing regulations entries may be passed on Form 107 on the day of the ship's arrival and the goods may be cleared from Customs charge. The additional particulars required by Form C. 105 may be supplied at any time within 14 days thereafter. If the forms were amalgamated as suggested by my hon. Friend, it would moan that the goods could not be entered until the whole of the combined form had been completed. I do not think, therefore, that it would be desirable to amend the regulations as suggested.

IMPOSTS FROM CANADA.

Mr. MITCHESON: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Canadian Government permit goods to be stamped as made in Canada provided that 25 per cent. only of the invoice value is represented by Canadian material and labour; and will he take steps to prevent such goods being admitted into the United Kingdom as Empire products when in fact they are 75 per cent. American?

Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 24th May to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie), a copy of which I am sending him.

EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. MITCHESON: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Attention has been called to the damage which is being done to British export trade by restrictions which the German authorities are placing upon importers of British goods into Germany in the matter of remittances to the British exporters; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the setting up of a clearing house whereby only the surplus between imports and exports would be remitted from country to country, as is being done by the Government of the Netherlands; with regard to Dutch exports to Germany?

Mr. COLVILLE: I am aware that German currency restrictions tend to reduce imports into Germany from all countries, but I understand that little complaint is being received as to difficulty in obtaining payment for goods actually supplied. The matter is being closely watched.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR INSURANCE.

Mr. REMER: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the case of Macbeth v. Gregson, at the Manchester Assizes on 23rd February, when the verdict was given for the defendant, who was insured with the Eagle, Star, and British Dominions Insurance Company, Limited, and had an insurance certificate under the Road Traffic Act; if he is aware that this company repudiated this certificate; and if he will bring in amending legislation to ensure that insurance companies issuing third-party insurance certificates shall in all cases be liable?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I have inquired as to this case and am informed that the defendant, when carrying as a passenger Mr. Macbeth without fee or reward, was involved in an accident which resulted in Mr. Macbeth sustaining severe injuries. I would point out to the hon. Member that by reason of proviso (ii) of Section 36 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, this class of accident falls outside the scope of the compulsory insurance provisions of the Road Traffic Act.

Mr. REMER: Has the attention of the Minister of Transport been called, not only to this case, but to many others where the insurance company have repudiated their insurance agreement, quite contrary to the wishes of this House and the Road Traffic Act?

Mr. PYBUS: The hon. Member raises a particular case, and I have replied to that case.

HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (WEIGHT RESTRICTION).

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: 52.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that, on 25th May last at Taunton, a fine of £1 was imposed on Charles Henry Mitchell for driving a motor vehicle which
was 4 tons 17 cwts. in excess of the weight permitted by law; that this was the defendant's thirteenth conviction and his third within three weeks for offences in connection with heavy motor vehicles; and whether, in view of this and similar cases, he will consider amending the law to impose severer minimum penalties upon those who persist in defying the law relating to the weight of road vehicles?

Mr. PYBUS: While my attention had not been previously drawn to this particular case, the practice on the part of some operators consistently to overload their vehicles is a matter which is engaging special attention at the present time with a view to seeing what steps can be taken for the more effective enforcement of the law. At the moment, however, I am not prepared to agree that further legislation is necessary.

ROADS (SAFETY).

Mr. MAITLAND (for Sir W. SUGDEN): 51.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state what method he adopts to deal with local authorities who, by reason of their highway powers, must keep the roads in safe condition, and who in many cases refuse to alter the crown of the road even when fatal accidents have resulted thereby?

Mr. PYBUS: No case of this kind has been brought to my notice, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will inform me of the instances he has in mind I will cause inquiries to be made.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland local authorities are liable in damages if they have roads in an unsafe condition? Should not the law of England be made the same as that of Scotland?

HOUSING (SOUTH MOLTON).

Mr. McGOVERN: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the South Molton Rural District Council is experiencing difficulty in proceeding with their housing scheme owing to the difficulty of negotiating with the Fortescue Estate Company on the questions of site and water supply; and if he has been approached on the matter, and can say what the position is?

Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend is aware that difficulties have been experienced by this local authority in the-past, but not that difficulties have arisen in connection with the authority's current proposals. He is making inquiries into the matter.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is some Socialistic motive in asking this question about this authority?

Mr. BROWN: I am not able to answer that question. I would refer my right hon. Friend to the hon. Gentleman who asked it.

MALTA (ELECTIONS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the COLONIES whether he could make any statement with regard to the elections in Malta?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Yes, Sir. Hon. Members will have seen that on the 3rd June the Archbishop of Malta and the Bishop of Gozo issued a new Pastoral, which supersedes the Pastoral of May, 1930. His Majesty's Government have held the same view as their predecessors, that, if the 1930 Pastoral remained in force, it would be impossible for a free election in Malta to take place. I am glad to say that situation no longer exists, and the Governor has been authorised to proceed with the elections.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make as to the situation in relation to the Irish Free State?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Yes, Sir; I have to inform the House that the Government have received, through the High Commissioner of the Irish Free State, and have accepted, an invitation from Mr. De Valera, for a preliminary discussion as to the present difficulties between the two countries in relation to negotiations
in connection with the Ottawa Conference. As a result, I propose to cross to Dublin to-night, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. Mr. De Valera has agreed to resume the conversations in London on Friday.

Mr. LANSBURY: On that, may I ask, first, whether Lord Hailsham accompanies the right hon. Gentleman, not as Minister for War, but as an ex-Lord High Chancellor; and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I think the whole country will congratulate both Mr. De Valera and the right hon. Gentleman on coming to this commonsense agreement?

Mr. THOMAS: With regard to the first part of the question, Lord Hailsham is accompanying me as a Member of the Cabinet.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: May I express a hope that there will be no compromise?

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what the agreement is that has been reached with Mr. De Valera?

Mr. THOMAS: I never mentioned any word of agreement. I said that the Government had received an intimation from Mr. De Valera, through the High Commissioner of the Irish Free State, that he desired consultation on the difficulties that arose from my statement, repeatedly made in this House, that it was impossible to conduct further negotiations either here or at Ottawa while the present attitude was adopted. The Government have also reiterated repeatedly that so far as they were concerned they were not opposed to any discussion. Mr. De Valera having intimated a desire for discussion and having intimated also that he himself would come to London on Friday to resume the discussion, the Government felt, and rightly felt in my judgment, that they had no alternative but to accept that invitation.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the line he has taken in meeting Mr. De Valera. Do I understand that the Government have now departed from their previous policy, which was to refuse to discuss while the Irish Government went ahead with the deletion of the Oath?

Mr. THOMAS: There is no departure of any sort or kind. The British Government never refused to discuss. They never received an invitation to discuss prior to this. The Irish Government prior to this, acted on their own without, consultation with us. On that intimation being made, we declared our policy and our intention. We had never departed from that. We have not departed now. That is the first invitation we have received. But I would respectfully suggest that if, as I hope, it is the desire of everyone for common sense—[An HON. MEMBER: "And common honesty!"]— and common honesty to triumph, it will be far better to have no further discussion in the House now.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Do we understand that the Government do not depart from their original attitude, and that there will be no concessions in the matter of the Treaty; that the Treaty stands?

Mr. THOMAS: The Government's position has been repeatedly stated by me on behalf of the Government. That position is known here; it is known in Ireland. But we have never refused this Dominion, and we would not refuse any other Dominion, an opportunity to discuss any point of view that may be put forward.

Mr. LOGAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take no notice of any-disgruntled Member of this House?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council how far it is proposed to go this evening if the Resolution for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is carried?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think it is possible to answer that question now. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have a chat with us as the day proceeds.

Mr. LANSBURY: It might be possible to allocate time a little differently from what I believe is understood at the moment. I suggest that some talk through the usual channels should cake place as to how time can be best allocated in order to get the Third Reading?

Mr. BALDWIN: We are ready to do what we can to facilitate business throughout the House. A little later in the day I think we shall be prepared to consult hon. Members.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 24.

Division No.211]
AYES
[3.30p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-


Atholl, Duchess of
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k


Atkinson, Cyril
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitcheson, G. G.


Balniel, Lord
Glossop, C. W. H.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Goldie, Noel 3.
Morgan, Robert H.


Bennett. Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Granville, Edgar
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Boulton, W. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grimston, R. V.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gunston, Captain D. W.
North, Captain Edward T.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nunn, William


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hales, Harold K.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hamliton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Hanbury, Cecil
Patrick, Colin M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Petherick, M.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Harris, Sir Percy
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Pike, Cecil F.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hartland, George A.
Potter, John


Burghley, Lord
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burnett, John George
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Butler, Richard Austen
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pybus, Percy John


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Holds worth, Herbert
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isies)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Rathbone. Eleanor


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rea, Walter Russell


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Remer, John R.


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hurd, Sir Percy
Robinson, John Roland


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Rosbotham, S. T.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ross, Ronald D.


Collins, Sir Godfrey
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Colville, John
Ker, J. Campbell
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cook, Thomas A.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth


Cooke, Douglas
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Cooper, A. Duff
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M H. R.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Copeland, Ida
Knight, Holford
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman. Sir A. N. Stewart


Cranborne, Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Savery, Samuel Servington


Craven-Ellis, William
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Selley, Harry R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Lees-Jones, John
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Culverwell, Cyrll Tom
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Levy, Thomas
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lewis, Oswald
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillp Cunliffe-
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Donner, P. W.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J


Drewe, Cedric
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Duggan, Hubert John
Mabane, William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthu


Dunglass. Lord
McKie, John Hamilton
Stevenson, James


Eastwood, John Francis
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stones, James


Eden, Robert Anthony
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strauss, Edward A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Maitland, Adam
Summersby, Charles H.


Elmley, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sutcliffe, Harold


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Martin, Thomas B.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Train, John
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Turton, Robert Hugh
White, Henry Graham
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)



Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wills, Wilfrid D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Sir Frederick Thomson and


Warrender, Sir victor A. G.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Sir George Penny


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Band)



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lawson, John James



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
Lunn, William
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Cordon Macdonald.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 19.—(Power of Minister to exclude compensation in certain classes of cases).

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, in page 25, line 20, after the word "prohibits," to insert the words:
(otherwise than by way of prohibition of building operations).
This carries out a pledge given in the Committee stage upstairs to make it quite clear that land only is dealt with. Building operations are dealt with in sub-paragraph (e). The next Amendment is consequential upon this.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 25,. line 22, after the word "restricts," insert the words:
(otherwise than by way of restriction of building operations)."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 25, line 27, to leave out the word "prescribes," and to insert instead thereof the words:
in the interests of safety regulates or empowers the responsible authority to regulate.
This Amendment with four others is intended to bring the language of the sub-paragraph into line with that of Section 4 of the Roads Improvement Act of 1925. They extend the sub-paragraph to walls and hedges as defined in subsequent Amendments, and to bends as well as corners. One of the Amendments excludes highways which, at the material date, were maintainable at the public expense.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 27, after the word "proposed," insert the word "walls."

In line 28, after the word "fences," insert the words "or hedges."

After the word "corners," insert the words "or bends."

Leave out from the word "roads" to the word "or," in line 31, and insert instead thereof the words:
other than highways maintainable at the material date by the Minister of Transport, a county council, or other highway authority."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I beg to move, in page 25, line 33, to leave out the words, "Class 1 or Class 2 road," and to insert instead thereof the words:
classified road, or a road, or the site of a proposed road which is declared by the Minister of Transport to be intended to be a classified road.
This is an Amendment which is a little more than drafting. It first substitutes what I understand is the proper term of art, namely, a classified road, for a Class 1 or Class 2 road; that is mainly drafting. Secondly, it deals with a case which has to be swept up, that is, where roads are not actually made when a scheme comes into operation and roads which, though made at that date, have not been brought by the Minister of Transport into the category of classified roads. The Minister of Transport does not actually classify a road until the existing circumstances warrant this course, but it is important that roads which would obviously, in the ordinary course of development, become classified should not be spoilt by the entry of unnecessary side roads. The Amendment therefore empowers the Minister of Transport to declare that a road was intended to be a classified road and thereby secure its protection.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 26, line 2, to leave out the word "or."
This and the next Amendment make the part of the Sub-paragraph run:
the provision of accommodation for loading, unloading or fuelling vehicles.
It was agreed in Committee that the Sub-paragraph ought to cover the case of motor vehicles stopping to pick up petrol.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 26, line 2, leave out the word "standing," and insert instead thereof the words "or fuelling."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amend-merit on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Smith-Carington)—in page 26, line 4, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no provision made in a scheme tinder the authority of this Subsection shall enable a responsible authority to prohibit or restrict the continuance of the existing use of an existing building without the payment by the responsible authority of compensation "—
creates a charge and is, therefore, not in order.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 26, line 5, to leave out from the word "Minister" to the word "provision," in line 13, and to insert instead thereof the words:
shall not approve the insertion in a scheme of a provision excluding compensation under the last preceding Sub-section or himself insert in a scheme such a provision—

(i) unless he is satisfied that, having regard to the objects of the scheme, the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is proper and reasonable;
(ii) if the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is such a."

This is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 26, line 17, at the beginning, to insert the words "reasonable alterations and".
In the Debate on Clause 19 in Standing Committee it was represented that the words "in proper cases" would enable the Minister to exclude compensation in respect of a provision which in some cases prevented any alteration from being made to an existing building. This Amendment is a transposition of words to make the intention quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 26, line 17, leave out the words "reasonable alterations and"—[Mr. E. Brown].

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 26, line 20, after the word "building," to insert the words:
or a building which was standing within two years before the material date.
This Amendment is to carry out a pledge given by me in Committee to bring the owners of buildings which were
standing within two years before the material date into as good a position as regards compensation as owners of buildings standing at the material date. I make special mention of the Amendment because it was originally thought that this alteration could be effected by means of an alteration of the definition of "existing buildings," but it is found to be better drafting and clearer to introduce it by several Amendments actually in the body of the Bill. The House will find that incorporated there, and then they will find the words are taken out of the definition, but the effect is the same and carries out the pledge given in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 26, line 28, leave out the word "existing," and insert instead thereof the word "previous."

In line 32, leave out the words "for an existing building."

In line 34, leave out the word "existing," and insert instead thereof the word "previous."

In line 41, leave out the word "and".—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 26, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:
() shall not make a declaration with respect to any such provision as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of the said Subsection where it is shown to his satisfaction that expenditure has prior to the material date been incurred or contracted to be incurred upon or preliminary to building operations.
Clause 18 gives compensation, and Clause 19 takes it away in certain cases. It is unfair, where an owner has contracted to incur certain expense or has incurred an expense in fact, that he is not to be allowed to have compensation, and I propose the insertion of these words so as to give him the right to compensation where he has either actually incurred or contracted to incur certain expenditure.

Mr. RHYS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the Amendment allows compensation where otherwise it was not allowed, it would be out of order by increasing the charge.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: It prevents the Minister refusing compensation, but the compensation given is given in the previous Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is so remote, that I will allow the hon. and gallant Member to move it.

Sir H. YOUNG: This matter was fully discussed in Committee, and I understood that the hon. and gallant Member was satisfied. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment for all that is really of any substance in it is already met in the Bill. "Existing building" and "existing work" are so defined in the Bill as to include not only a building or work actually existing at the time of the material date, but also a building or work in course of erection or construction, or even—and this is a further extension which covers every possible case—for the erection or construction of which a contract has been made. I do not think that we can sweep the net any wider than that, particularly in view of the circumstance that if my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment were passed we would be conferring a right to claim compensation under circumstances which would be detrimental to the general interest of the community. This Amendment goes beyond the limits of what can practically be dealt with in the Bill as it stands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 27, line 1, leave out from the beginning, to the word "provision," in line 2, and insert instead thereof the words:
if the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is such a.

In line 3, leave out the words "being a," and insert instead thereof the words "in so far as that."

In line 4, leave out the word "which."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 27, line 6, after the word "underground," to insert the words "or surface."
This and the following Amendment in my name, to leave out lines 7 to 16, which deal with the winning of minerals by surface working, hang together. Under paragraph (a) the Minister cannot pre-
vent compensation being given when the scheme prohibits or restricts the winning of minerals by underground working. There seems to be no reason why there should be any distinction between underground and overground working. If the words "or surface" are put in paragraph (a), the subsequent paragraphs (b) and (c) will be unnecessary.

Mr. TRAIN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: This is a matter which received very careful attention in Committee, although not in this precise form. I am proposing in a subsequent Amendment to make a change to meet a point which the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) desired to make, but which he was unable to make, in Committee. I am afraid that I could not advise the House to go so far as to make the much wider alteration proposed in these Amendments. There is a substantial differentiation between surface working and underground working. Underground workings do not interfere with the amenities of the surface over a large area, whereas surface workings do very much characterise a neighbourhood. The principal surface workings are the getting of gravel, and that is a matter over which, I think, it is perfectly legitimate to give power to local authorities. The power which is given is carefully hedged in the Bill. Compensation under the Bill can only be excluded so far as the provisions prohibit or restrict surface working of minerals, firstly, in a residential area. That brings such workings within a very narrow range of cases, and it is this limit which I shall still further reduce in view of the point taken in Committee. Secondly, compensation can only be excluded in so far as the land had not before the material date been acquired for the purposes of winning minerals or the right to win them had not been acquired. We cannot therefore interfere with any existing working or any accrued interest in working. We cannot disappoint any legitimate expectations.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: The clay pits in the West of England may be affected by this provision. It is a technical position, and I would like the Minister to look into it so that that industry should not suffer no handicap in any way.

Mr. RHYS: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that underground workings do not affect the surface. Anybody who is acquainted with colliery districts knows endless cases of subsidence of houses perhaps half a mile or a mile away from the pithead and at a great lateral distance from the colliery underground. It is not right to say that underground working do not affect the surface; they do very materially.

Sir H. YOUNG: In reply to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), clay-pits will have the same protection as surface workings for gravel. You cannot interfere with existing pits but only with a new pit which is opened in a residential area. I am prepared to consider any special circumstances to which the hon. Member draws my attention. In reply to the other question, I recognise that there are conditions under which underground workings affect surface amenities, but it is not thought right to interfere with so wide an interest.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 27, line 8, leave out from the word "land," to the word "the," in line 9.

In line 10, after the word "working," insert the words:
unless the land is reserved by the scheme, and has been substantially developed, for residential purposes.

In line 16, leave out the word "and."

In line 17, leave out from the beginning to the word "provision," in line 18, and insert instead thereof the words:
if the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is such a.

In line 19, leave out "(h)," and insert "(i)."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 27, line 20, to leave out the words "that in proper cases," and to insert instead thereof the words:
if representations are made to him in any particular case, and the case appears to him to be a proper one, that.
4.0 p.m.
The effect of this Amendment is to limit the cases in which the Minister must be satisfied that reasonable means of access to a highway is provided to those cases in which his attention is called by representation being made to him. As a
matter of practical administration, the House will understand that it would be impossible for the inspectors of the Department to examine every case whether the point has been raised or not.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 27, line 23, to leave out from the beginning to the word "provision," in line 24, and to insert instead thereof the words:
if the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is such a.
This Amendment is consequential upon one that was made on Friday.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Will the hon. Member be good enough to tell us upon what this Amendment is consequential? It is very difficult to follow these Amendments so rapidly. We have just been told that this one is consequent upon something which happened on Friday. If the hon. Member will tell us what it is, we can judge whether we should pass the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: This is an Amendment which is consequential upon an Amendment in page 24, line 39, to leave out from the word "Section" to the word "either" in line 41, and to insert instead thereof the words "a scheme may provide." That Amendment and several consequential Amendments of a drafting nature are to carry out an undertaking given on behalf of the Government that any provision excluding compensation should be part of the scheme and not detached from it, and to ensure that that provision of the scheme should be subjected to the same procedure as the scheme itself.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 27, line 25, after the word "Subsection," to insert the words "and so far as concerns any particular land."
This Amendment and the next Amendment are really drafting Amendments. In accepting the principle of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys) in Committee to add paragraph (v) to Sub-section (2) of this Clause, I stated that re-drafting
would have to be considered, and this is the form of drafting now suggested in order to meet the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. YOUNG:: I beg to move, in page 27, line 26, to leave out from the word "him" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words:
as respects that land, that it will be practicable notwithstanding the provision to erect thereon a building which is suitable having regard to the other provisions of the scheme governing the development of that land.

Mr. RHYS: This Amendment raises a rather important question with regard to the development of land. Might I point out that paragraph (k) gives the Minister power to exclude compensation where a building line is fixed? The Roads Improvement Act, 1925, decided that compensation should be given where a building line is proposed. I endeavoured to ascertain whether this Sub-section would not, in fact, deprive an owner of the right of compensation which Parliament decided he should have under the Act of 1925, and I think it was found, upon investigation, that the Sub-section might have the effect of depriving an owner of that compensation. In passing, I would like to enter a protest, if I may, at the tendency which sometimes grows up to repeal in effect past legislation by means of such Sub-sections. I readily recognise, however, that when I drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this, he immediately realised the justice of the contention I put forward. I have on the Order Paper an Amendment dealing with the same point, but varying the wording slightly. My own view is that there should be no Amendment whatever to paragraph (v). I should like to see retained the words "former capacity" inserted in Committee on an Amendment I myself moved; but I know that the Government will, of course, carry their Amendment which has just been moved, and therefore I have endeavoured to modify it slightly.
The point I would like to put is this: Where a building line is set back, and there is not sufficient depth of land left, owing, let us say, to a quarry or embankment behind the road, to erect the suitable kind of house that could have been put up had the building line not been prescribed by the local authority,
then compensation should be payable. I used the words "former capacity" because I am very anxious to encourage the provision of gardens for houses, and I am very much afraid that under the Minister's new Amendment, and, indeed, under my own, which only slightly modifies the Minister's, you would get a crowding of buildings on the land without sufficient space being left for gardens, which otherwise could have been allotted to the House. That is not a very desirable tendency. I think that in all possible cases we ought to encourage gardens. Perhaps the words "building or buildings" cover the inclusion of gardens. I should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say on that point, and whether he would take my Amendment instead of his own. It would go a slight way towards satisfying an undoubted grievance which has arisen, and go some way towards satisfying the point that this Bill repeals existing legislation in this respect.

Sir H. YOUNG: I may, perhaps, shorten the discussion. As I explained to my hon. Friend, although this Amendment is necessary, I think, for the sake of the drafting of the Bill, it is my intention to accept his next Amendment which deals with the point which he says is not satisfactory to him, but is more satisfactory than nothing. I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. RHYS: I beg to move, in page 27, line 26, to leave out from the word "him" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words:
as respects that land that it will be practicable notwithstanding the provision to erect thereon such a building or buildings which are suitable, having regard to the other provisions of the scheme governing the development of that land.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 27, line 34, after the first word "in," insert the words "paragraph (ii) of."

In line 36, leave out the words "an existing," and insert instead thereof the words "a previous."

In page 28, line 9, after the first word "in, "insert the words" paragraph (ii) of."

In line 19, leave out from the word "to," to the word "the," in line 21, and insert instead thereof the words:
approve the insertion in a scheme of a provision excluding compensation or ought himself to insert such a provision.

In line 24, after the word "provision," insert the words "in respect of which compensation is excluded."

In line 27, at the end, insert the words "in respect of which compensation is ex-eluded."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

CLAUSE 20.—(Exclusion, or limitation of compensation in certain cases.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
() Nothing in this Section shall deprive any person of compensation in respect of injury caused by the coming into operation of any provision contained in a scheme made under this Act on the ground that that provision could have been validly inserted in a scheme made under a local Act repealed by this Act, and that if the same had been inserted in such scheme either no compensation in respect of injury caused by the coming into operation of that provision or compensation in respect thereof less than that payable under this Act would have been payable."—[Brigadier-General Brown.]

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is not in order.

CLAUSE 21.—(Recovery of betterment from, owners of property increased in value.)

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 29, line 38, to leave out from the word "authority" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
if within twelve months after the date on which the provision came into operation or such longer period as may be specified in the scheme, or within twelve months after the completion of the work, as the case may be, they make a claim in that behalf, may, subject to the provisions of this Act, recover from the person whose property is so increased in value an amount not exceeding seventy-five per cent, of the amount of that increase:
Provided that, except where the person against whom the claim is made has claimed from the responsible authority by way of compensation under this Act in connection with the scheme an amount not less than the amount claimed by the responsible authority under this Section and the claim for compensation has been allowed in an amount not less than the amount claimed as aforesaid, or is outstanding, that person may at any time within twenty-eight days after service on him of the claim give notice in
writing to the responsible authority requiring them to defer the claim, and in that event the claim shall be withdrawn.
(2) Where a notice has been given in respect of any property under the last preceding Sub-section the responsible authority shall be entitled to make a fresh claim against the person who gave the notice—

(a) on the taking effect at any time within fourteen years from the date of service of the said notice of a disposition of the property;
(b) on the taking place at any time within the said period of fourteen years of a change in the use of the property;
(c) in the case of property which was at the date of the original claim used for the purposes of any business or industry, and in respect of which there has not within the period of five years next after the date of the service of the notice been made any claim under paragraph (a) or (b) of this Sub-section, at any time within a period of twelve months after the expiration of the said period of five years:

Provided that no claim shall be made under paragraph (b) of this Sub-section in the case of property used at the date of the original claim as arable, meadow or pasture ground, or as market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards or allotments, or for a plantation or a wood or for the growth of saleable underwood, or as allotment gardens within the meaning of the Allotments Act, 1922, or (being land which exceeds one quarter of an acre) for the purpose of poultry farming, if the new use of the property is a use for one or more of those purposes.
(3) If a claim is made on a disposition of property or, in the case of property used for the purposes of any business or industry, on the expiration of the said period of five years, the responsible authority may recover a sum not exceeding seventy-five per cent, of the amount by which the property has been increased in value by the coming into operation of the provision or by the execution of the work in respect of which the original claim was made, and the date of the fresh claim shall be the date by reference to which the increase in value shall be determined, and thereafter no further claim shall be made under this Section in respect of that property.
(4)If a claim is made on a change taking place in the use of property the responsible authority may recover a sum not exceeding seventy-five per cent, of the amount by which the property has for the purposes of its new use been increased in value, and on any subsequent change of use taking place or upon any disposition of the property taking effect within the period of fourteen years a fresh claim may be made.
(5)In assessing the amount of any sum payable under this Section in respect of any property account shall be taken—

(a) of any principal sum paid or payable to the responsible authority in respect of the property under a claim previously made under this Section; and
1615
(b) of any gift of land, or money, or any concession made by any person against whom the claim under this Section in respect of the property is made with a view to facilitating the making or carrying into effect of the scheme.

(6)Any sum recoverable under this Section may be paid either immediately or by such instalments spread over a period not exceeding thirty years as may be agreed or determined under this Act, and where payment is made by instalments interest at such rate as may from time to time be fixed by the Treasury shall be chargeable on the aggregate amount of the instalments for the time being outstanding.
(7)A person who gives a notice under Sub-section (1) of this Section shall, within one month after the date on which any such disposition as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of this Section takes effect or any such change of use as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the said Subsection (2) takes place, give written notice thereof to the responsible authority and shall, within one month after receiving from the responsible authority a demand in that behalf (which demand shall be made within two months after the giving of the notice), furnish to the authority such particulars as they may reasonably require for the purposes of this Section:
Provided that if at any time the responsible authority make a claim which under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of this Section is final they shall notify the person who gave the notice under Sub-section (1) of this Section that no further notice of disposition or change of user need be sent.
(8)A claim made on a disposition of property taking effect or on a change taking place in its use shall be made not later than the expiration of twelve months from the date on which notice is given to the responsible authority under Sub-section (7) of this Section of the disposition or change of the use or, where particulars are demanded by the authority, the date on which the particulars are furnished to the authority.
(9)The provisions of this Section shall apply to a disposition of, or a change in the use of, a part of any property in respect of which notice has been given under Subsection (1) of this Section as they apply in relation to a disposition of or a change in the use of the whole of that property.
(10) Where any provision of a scheme, whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act, is revoked by a subsequent scheme no property shall be deemed to be increased in value by any provision contained in the subsequent scheme if and in so far as that provision is the same, or substantially the same, as a provision contained in the scheme so revoked:
Provided that if at the date when the revocation of the said scheme becomes operative there is still outstanding any claim in respect of an increase in the value of any
property duly made thereunder, or the time originally limited for making such a claim has not expired, any such outstanding claim, and any such claim made within the time so limited, shall be entertained and determined, and may be enforced, in the like manner in all respects as if all the provisions of the earlier scheme had continued in operation.
(11) In this Section the expression "disposition" means a disposition by way of sale (including a sale in consideration of a rent-charge or other periodical payment) or by way of lease or tenancy agreement for a period of not less than three years, and references to the person who gives a notice under Sub-section (1) of this Section shall, where a devolution of the property to which the notice relates has occurred since the notice was given, be construed as references to the person on whom the property to which the notice relates last devolved before the date on which a disposition takes effect or a change of use takes place.
This Amendment replaces, in substance, the present Clause 21, dealing with betterment. In its general lines it is the same as that Clause, only it makes one big difference as a result of a discussion in Committee. The view which was then arrived at is now carried out in this Amendment. As the House is aware, the principle of betterment is, of course, an old one in planning work, but the matter has to be reviewed now that we are extending planning. In order to enable town and country planning powers to work more smoothly in the wider sweep now given to them, it is necessary to make the compensation and the betterment Clauses work as smoothly as possible. In order that they may work as smoothly as possible, they must work as justly as possible. Therefore, it is necessary, as I say, in order to make the bigger machinery work well and smoothly, to avoid every form of injustice or inequality to the individual. Because, as has always been said by myself and others throughout this matter, town and country planning, in order to be an efficient engine for achieving its purpose must be one that is worked in co-operation between the planning authorities and the personal interests, the owner and occupier concerned.
That is the object of the new matter introduced into this Clause—to make the compensation and betterment provisions, particularly the betterment provisions, as just and fair as they can be made. For this purpose, two principles, as it were, are established. The first is this—
and I think it will commend itself to the House as a common-sense principle—that when one is putting his land to a certain use, and a scheme comes along and improves its value for another use, he shall not have to pay betterment in respect of its increased value for that other use, unless and until he puts that land to that other use. After all, he is master of his own, and is entitled to put his land to what use he likes, and until he puts it to the special use in respect of which the value of the land has been improved it would be arbitrary and unfair to expect him to pay. The second thing is that it is a sound principle in the payment of any betterment charge that it should not be paid unless and until there is some definite fund out of which it can be paid; in other words, the one who enjoys betterment should not be called upon to pay for it unless he is in actual possession of it. That is the second principle which we seek to enforce in the refinements introduced into the betterment Clause.
I come now to an explanation of the actual provisions of the Amendment. In the first place we say that, generally speaking, the owner who is receiving compensation under the Act is in a position to pay betterment because he has a fund out of which to pay, and so it is fair to set off the one against the other. But the matter is undoubtedly capable of refinement for the preservation of this principle not to pay betterment until it is realised, and an interesting point will arise on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Dorset which undoubtedly raises ground for discussion. Secondly, the general machinery of the Clause will be this: First of all, to repeat and re-establish the right to claim betterment—which is nothing new—and then to say that the actual payment of the betterment can be postponed, on the requirement of the owner who has to pay it, until the occurrence of one of these eventualities to which I have referred. The next thing we need is a time limit, and after a consideration of the practical aspects of the case, we propose to introduce a time limit of 14 years for the making of these claims. That is another provision which I think is quite legitimately asked for by those who have to pay the charges.
Next we have to deal with cases of what I should call betterment which is not realised once and for all in the form of a lump sum, but realised only in the form of an annual increase of income. That can only apply to the case of a business or industry. In paragraph (c) it is provided that in the case of a business or industry which experiences betterment—a rare case—the claim for betterment can be made in respect of the increase in value. We preserve all the exemptions for agriculture which were preserved in the original Act. No betterment claim can be made in respect of agricultural land when it is changed from one agricultural use to another, even though there may be some betterment in the process. We define disposition of the land if, betterment is to be paid upon disposition, as the sale or parting with the land by lease or tenancy agreement of not less than three years. Then we make special reference to the sum recoverable being paid in whole or by instalments. That is a very important provision for removing any suspicion of inequity in view of the principle that betterment shall be paid upon realisation.
These will be the general effects of the new Clause as amended as a result of discussions in Committee, and I think it fairly embodies the undertakings given there. One matter of machinery may perhaps be worth mentioning. It is thought right now to make betterment payable in case of sale by the vendor, that is the person who actually realises the income, and since that is so it is no longer worth while to maintain betterment as an actual charge on the land. It is a good thing for the free dealing in land to avoid as many charges on land as we can, and so we cease to provide that betterment is to be charged on the land, and it becomes a personal debt of the person to whom it is charged.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
It seems to me that the House is confronted with a very considerable difficulty. We are dealing here with no new matter. When the Clause was before the last Parliament, in 1931, I moved an Amendment to the old Clause, which was virtually the Clause as printed in this
Bill, providing that betterment should only be chargeable when some increased value had been actually realised, either in the form of a sale, a lease, or other disposition of the property, or on the renewal of a lease—that is to say when some definite tangible betterment had been realised. On the general principle of betterment neither I nor, I suppose, any other hon. Member is in disagreement. We agree that where an owner of property secures an increase of value owing either to the coming into operation of a scheme, or to the carrying out of a work under a scheme, such as the widening of a road, it is only fair and reasonable that he should pass on at any rate a very considerable proportion of the increased value to the local authority which has incurred the expense. But there is a great difficulty about attempting to secure this betterment charge before it has been actually realised. For that reason I moved my Amendment in the last Parliament, and it was rejected by one vote only. It secured not only the vote but the support by speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney-General, and commended itself, I think, to every member of the Committee.
That Amendment was proposed again in this Parliament, and, had it not been withdrawn, it would undoubtedly have been carried, and it was withdrawn only on a definite promise from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that he would insert in the Bill words having the effect of securing that betterment should only be charged when it had been actually realised. The pledge was not lightly or hastily given. I remember reflecting in. the course of the morning upon which that pledge was secured that a dentist's job was not so easy as I and other people had hitherto supposed it to be. Various efforts were made to arrive at a compromise. My right hon. Friend first said he would insert words in the Clause to secure that betterment should not be paid until some funds were available out of which it could be paid, but that the Committee, quite rightly, I think, were unwilling to accept. Then he promised to insert further words, and finally made use of this very definite and explicit pledge:
I propose to add a provision—I must seek means for carrying it out—that in that case the betterment is not to be paid until it is actually realised.
I hope I may be pardoned for going over the history of this matter, but it is one of great importance, which may affect the value of every single piece of land and every shop and business premises in the whole of England, and it is necessary to remind the House of what occurred in Committee. After that statement the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne) asked:
Will the betterment be assessed before that date? It seems to me that the whole problem in this discussion is as between potential betterment and realised betterment. My point is that the betterment should not be assessed except by sale, and that it is on the realised betterment that the 75 per cent. should be paid. Does the Minister still retain inside the Bill the principle of potential or assessed betterment, such as existed in connection with the Land Value Tax?
On that the Minister said:
No. The provision of the Bill is, and will remain, that the assessment of betterment takes place at the time of the claim unless the owner, at his option, prefers to have it made at the time of the scheme."—[OFFICTAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 28th April, 1932; col. 740.]
On that definite assurance that betterment should only be charged after it had been actually realised I withdrew my Amendment. That pledge was given on 28th April. This proposed Amendment of the Clause appeared only on or about 2nd June, which allowed only a very limited time for its discussion with the various experts who are capable of giving advice on matters of this kind. We have not been very much helped by the long delay between the promise which my right hon. Friend was good enough to give and the appearance of this Amendment to the Clause. My complaint is that in two respects the amended Clause will require that payment shall be made before the value has been actually realised in the form of a capital appreciation on which a capital charge can be assessed. One is the case provided for in line 9 of the Amendment, which provides that compensation may be set off against betterment. There may well be cases where compensation for a potential injury might quite reasonably be set off against betterment charges for a potential improvement, but where it is a case of actual injury received
at the moment then it seems unreasonable that compensation for that injury should be set off as against a possible future betterment.
4.30 p.m.
Take a case where four or five cottages have to be demolished in the course of carrying out a road improvement scheme. The local authority is liable to pay compensation to the owner of those cottages for what is to him an immediate loss. Under lines 9 to 13 of the Amendment it would be possible for the local authority to say "Yes, we owe you a sum of money in respect of the four cottages destroyed, but there is no doubt that the value of your land beyond these cottages has been improved by our scheme, your land which previously had little or no value now has a definite building value, and therefore we shall not pay you any money, but we will call it quits." To me that seems an unjust and unreasonable procedure. The local authority will admit liability to compensation, will agree that they owe the man £300 or £400 or £500 but will say "You must make us a forced loan of that sum, carrying no interest, until such time as you have been able to recover it by selling for building or other purposes your other land which has been improved in value." Quite true, you may do that. In that respect, it will be a question later on of discussing the exact merits of that matter. My contention is that, in spite of the very definite and express statement of the Minister, the promise that betterment shall not be charged unless and until it has been actually realised has not been carried out. By no conceivable stretch of imagination can compensation for a definite injury received be described as realisation of betterment. That is one case. The other case is one with which my right hon. Friend dealt fully, the case of appreciation for business purposes. It is true that in the case of business premises owned and occupied by a firm,, in which no change of owner takes place, there may frequently be capital appreciation as the result of the scheme coming into operation. In that case, my right hon. Friend proposes that, after a period of five years, betterment can be charged.
Whatever the merits of this question may be, and I shall be prepared to discuss that later on, by no conceivable stretch of the imagination can a temporary in-
crease in the goodwill of a business be described as a realisation of a betterment charge, on which a betterment tax of 75 per cent. can be properly or justly imposed. I can easily imagine cases of that kind in which such a betterment charge may be made. Take the case of a garage which, owing to the fact that it was only on a small side road, did very little business. A scheme comes into operation to make a small side road into a large main road, the turnover of the garage increases. The garage appreciates in value and does better than it has been doing before. These are not good times, and I should not begrudge any improvement to anyone who increased his annual turnover, but to place a capital charge on an increased turnover for a period of five years seems to be a wholly unjustifiable proceeding. Again, by no stretch of the imagination can an increased turnover, increased profits, or increased volume of business over a period of five years be described as a fair basis for levying a tax of 75 per cent. on the capitalised value of such increased turnover. In those two respects, whatever my right hon. Friend's proposal may be—there is a certain amount to be said on both sides—it certainly does not carry out the very definite and very final and conclusive pledge which was made that betterment should only be charged upon an actual realised benefit.
My Amendment proposed that betterment should be charged on lease, sale or realisation. All those are factors which have a definite assessable value on which you can borrow money. You cannot borrow money, for instance, on an increased turnover, and you cannot borrow money on compensation for injury received, or the destruction of property which, ipso facto, requires an immediate spending of the money again, or which is compensation for an actual injury. The Clause does not carry out the promise which has been made, and the House is therefore confronted with an extremely difficult situation. My right hon. Friend when he spoke mentioned that an interesting point would occur in connection with the Amendment to be moved by my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne). That may be so. In a situation of this kind it is not for private Members to
move Amendments. We do not know what the fate of those Amendments may be. We are speaking in a comparatively empty House, and we know what happens when the Division takes place. It may be that the Amendments will not be selected, or they may be out of order because they will impose a charge. It is impossible to know what their fate may be.
In a case of this kind, the Committee undoubtedly would have taken a definite course except for the definite pledge given by the Minister, and it is for the Minister to carry out the promise fully when the discussion reaches the Report stage. I need not labour the merits of the case. A definite pledge has been made, and has not been carried out, and private Members are in an extremely unfortunate position. My Motion is put forward in order that the Minister may have an opportunity of making a statement on the position. If he would either move the two Amendments which would secure fully the carrying out of the undertaking which he has given to the House, or would indicate that he would take steps to deal with the matter in another place, we shall be very happy to proceed with the discussion. It is difficult, if not impossible, to proceed with the discussion unless and until some further statement has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. In conclusion, I wish to say that I am very far from imputing in any kind of way any breach of faith by the Minister. I realise that this difficulty is due entirely to there being no opportunity for consultation. Our opportunity for consultation has been very limited indeed, but that is due entirely to a misunderstanding, and is not due in any way to any attempt by my right hon. Friend not to carry out his obligation.

Sir H. YOUNG: Both points which the Noble Lord has raised are points which arise on specific Amendments which are to be proposed to this Clause, first of all on the Amendment by the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne) on compensation and betterment, and, secondly, that to be proposed by the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) on paragraph (c) of Sub-section (2). For myself, I have looked forward to those two matters being discussed on the
specific Amendments where I think they could most easily be discussed, and I should have suggested to the House to leave the settlement of the issue which the Noble Lord has raised to those two actual Amendments. He has said that it is possible that those Amendments will not be called, or that they will be out of order. I had not considered that possibility. The Amendments appear to be in order, and to be straightforward Amendments. Perhaps, in the course of the one or two observations I shall make in reply to the Noble Lord, I can satisfactorily deal with that possibility.
I am anxious to deal most fully and closely with any suspicion on the part of any hon. Members that any undertaking which I gave in Committee has not been carried out. I fully recognise that in a matter of such great complexity as this doubts may honestly arise as to whether any principle has been absolutely maintained. They have arisen in my own mind with regard to the first point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire. The principle upon which we agreed was, as he says, that betterment should only be paid when realised, and not when it was merely potential or assessable. That is the principle which we maintain. In regard to this first point where the application of the principle is questioned, the Amendment says:
Provided that, except where the person against whom the claim is made has claimed from the responsible authority by way of compensation under this Act in connection with the scheme an amount not less than the amount claimed by the responsible authority under this Section and the claim for compensation has been allowed in an amount not less than the amount claimed as aforesaid, or is outstanding, that person may at any time within twenty-eight days after service on him of the claim give notice in writing to the responsible authority requiring them to defer the claim.
What that means is that if, after betterment was claimed, it was certain that the party against whom it was claimed would be in possession of a fund by way of compensation out of which betterment could be paid, then he could be called on to pay at once because there would be a realisation. That seems, at first fight, to be adequate and full establishment of the principle, but representations have been made, and it is possible to say, that, although there is a fund out of which the betterment can be paid, it is not a
relevant fund. The compensation may be in respect of different matters, and not in relation to the betterment. So, in substance, there is money, yet it is not money due to the betterment itself. It is money due to something else. That is a rather fine, but still no doubt logical and just interpretation of the strict principle of betterment. It may be said that asking a man always to pay his betterment out of his compensation, if he has any, is not a strict adherence to the principle of realisation. It is because I have been convinced of the logic of this criticism—I do not think there is anything in it from the practical point of view, but, logically and theoretically speaking, I see that it is not a fulfilment of my original undertaking—that I have made up my mind to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, which would do away even with the, theoretical departure from the principle of realisation in that respect. If, when we arrive at the Amendment of my Noble Friend the Member for West Dorset, we do not find it is in order—I think it will be quite in order—and if by any accident it cannot be moved, I will myself see that that Amendment is proposed in another place. When I have done that I feel that I have removed the last doubts in my mind as to whether I have strictly, literally, and practically fulfilled the undertaking which I gave in Committee.
The second point that was made by the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire does not, in my opinion, involve any departure from the principle of realisation. What is the case? It is the case where a business, or an industry, is affected by a planning scheme. Owing to the carrying out of that scheme, there is some betterment in the actual value of the business or industry. That is an extremely rare and exceptional case. It is a case which very seldom occurs. It is possible to imagine such cases, and cases might occur in practical work, but it is a very small and limited class of case, and there is no betterment in 90 cases out of a 100. We have here a possible case of a business or industry the value of which is improved by a scheme.
This is a point to which I specifically want to call the attention of the House, and to which I do not think the Noble Lord gave sufficient prominence in his
observations. It is the case of a business or industry where you have betterment, and there is actual realisation of the betterment going on from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month. In the rare case where there is any betterment at all, there is an actual realisation in the income or profits arising from the business. So you get betterment realised in the way of increase of profits and income, and it is in accordance with the principle of realisation to require betterment to be paid, because there is value in hand out of which it can be paid. The Noble Lord criticised, I think justly, the difficulty of assessing betterment in the value of an industry or business. That is so. I can see that it is exceptionally hard. It must be very difficult to come to the conclusion that there has been an increase in the value of the trade or business as a result of the planning scheme. It is a question for the arbitrator to decide whether there has been betterment or not. That in the nature of the case, arises generally where the question is, whether betterment has occurred or not. The point with which we are dealing is a different one. It is as to whether the value of the betterment is in hand, and in the case of a business or industry whose profits or income are increased as the result of the scheme the value is in hand.
Let me ask the attention of the House to another point. The value is in hand, but, owing to the nature of these cases in general—the fact that the businesses are carried on by firms and so on—there never will be any single occasion upon which the whole value will appear in the form of a capital sum. Suppose that a business belongs to a company—a great multiple shop company or something of the sort. It goes on and on, and nothing is realised except in this form of increment in annual value. There the betterment is realised. It may not be realised as a capital sum, but it is definitely realised day by day, week by week, and year by year in the form of increased profits.
I say then that there is no departure whatever, in the proposal made here, from my original undertaking that betterment was not to be charged except when it was realised—not if it were merely assessable or only potential. Here it is not potential, but is being realised day
by day; it is represented by an actual increment in value. It is, no doubt, difficult to assess, but that is a question for the arbitrator. It may well be that this is particularly a case which is appropriate for payment by instalments, and, indeed, I think that any possible hardship or difficulty as regards finding the betterment out of an annual increase in value would be dealt with by payment by instalments.
Finally, I think the House must be asked to consider the fact that while as I have said there is no breach of the principle of realisation, the result of the omission of this provision would be to make a perfectly arbitrary, unjustifiable, inequitable distinction between two classes of persons who are enjoying actual realised betterment. People who enjoyed their betterment in a form in which it could come to hand as a single payment would have to pay, but the others—few, no doubt, but still there may be some—who enjoyed their betterment in the realised form, not of a certain capital payment, but of increased annual value, would escape payment of betterment altogether.
I submit to the House that that cannot be justified. You cannot justify dealing differently with the case of an owner who sells his land and has to pay betterment on the sale of his land, and the case of a multiple shopkeeper who is enjoying an increased profit, but who, under the proposal of the Noble Lord, would escape ever having to pay anything in respect of the assessment of the betterment which is held to exist in respect of the value of his shop. When you are establishing a scheme of this sort, you must do equal justice all round; you must leave no grave sense of inequality in the mind of any person; and I have been unable to see anything that would enable one to distinguish the class of persons who have realised betterment on their business or industry in the form of an annual payment from the other class who enjoy it in the form about which there is no disagreement. In these circumstances, I am prepared, as I have said, to meet the first point in the form of the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset, because there I have some doubt as to whether the prin-
ciple established in Committee has been carried out; but on the second point I have no doubt at all that we have carried out the principle established in Committee, and that if we were to omit paragraph (c), we should be creating a perfectly illegitimate distinction between two classes of persons who have realised betterment. In these conditions I must resist the Motion for the Adjournment, and ask the House to continue consideration of the Clause.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I want, first of all, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his concession in regard to the first of the two points which were made by my Noble Friend. We feel that that is certainly the strongest point on which the Clause departs from what was done in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has met the objection thoroughly, and we are duly grateful to him and wish to express our thanks. But I desire to call the attention of the House to the second of the two points which the right hon. Gentleman has just been discussing, and to put another side to the question. I think it is possible that he is correct in saying that this particular point is not affected by the undertaking given in Committee, but I do think that, on merits, there is considerable danger, certainly of great confusion, and possibly of great injustice, if paragraph (c) is allowed to stand in its present form. I am aware, of course, of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has used as to the extreme rarity and complexity of the case, and the extreme difficulty of arriving at a truly equitable solution; but I suggest that the principle of paragraph (c) sets up a very dangerous state of affairs. Let us examine it more closely.
Under that paragraph, any increase in the profits of a business or industry which may by any stretch of the imagination of the appropriate authority, be attributable to any work that they may do under a town planning scheme, may be claimed to be chargeable with a contribution for betterment. This betterment differs distinctly from the betterment which is realised in a lump sum, in that the betterment realised in the form of an increase of profits is liable to direct taxation, and, therefore, every year, that sum, whether it be due to the work of the local authority or to the enterprise of the man con-
ducting the business or industry, is paying its quota of taxation to the State. I suggest that that alone is a differentiation which might justify exemption from the payment of betterment under this Bill.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit on reflection that it is not correct to say that it is never realisable in a lump sum, because, if the business is sold or wound up, it will, of course, be realisable in a lump sum in exactly the same way as any other betterment, and then, under the other part of the Clause, it could be charged as such. But, while it is running on as an annual increment, not only is it liable to taxation, but it is, we submit, utterly impossible for any arbitrator to assess it. Consider the circumstances. A man has a business. Owing to road alterations, his shop is in a better position. If we assume that that happens this year under the present Government, when trade is going to look up, and his business increases by leaps and bounds, how is it possible to say how much of that increase is due to the general increase in prosperity caused by the beneficent action of the Government, and how much is due to the benevolent action of the town planning authority? I submit that it is utterly impossible. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that it must be left to the arbitrator to decide, but I think it is putting too big a burden on the arbitrator.
There can be no reason why this way of improving trade should be treated any differently from any other measures that the Government put forward for that purpose. If a town planning scheme has the effect of definitely giving an impetus to business in the locality, it will be a better scheme than I believe any of them are likely to be; and in view of the possibility that betterment might very easily be charged on what might be due, not to the scheme, but to the man's own energy, and in view of the fact that any betterment that does accrue in this way is liable to taxation, and, therefore, pays its contribution, I suggest to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman that on consideration they and he will find that there is a very good case for treating this form of betterment in a different way from betterment that is realisable in a lump sum; and, whether or not this
question is affected by the statements made in Committee—and I am inclined to agree that in this particular case it is not—I suggest that; the House will be well advised to treat this matter somewhat differently, and, when the time comes, to exclude the paragraph.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If, as the Minister says, the occasions on which this question will arise are very rare, might not the way to peace be simply to leave out the provision altogether? If these cases are only going to occur very rarely, it is hardly worth while having a. dispute in the House of Commons about them. On the other hand, some of those who have listened to a discussion on this point for the first time may remember that, after such provisions have been put into operation, although the official view is that the cases will be very rare, the taxing authorities, when they go into the matter, find that they can make a large number of cases. From that point of view the Minister might surely, on his own assumption that these cases will hardly ever happen, relieve the feelings of certain hon. Members opposite by giving way on both these points. I believe that the House is generally speaking trying to meet him in regard to the whole of his Bill, and I put forward that suggestion on the basis of his own argument that these cases are likely to be rare.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Captain HEILGERS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
unless the land has been in the same ownership for the previous ten years, when the amount shall not exceed fifty per cent. of that increase.
In moving this Amendment, I do not want to revive the controversy on the question of betterment, but rather to ask for some discrimination between the sheep and the goats—between genuine landlords and land speculators․․

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that, before we proceed any further with this Debate, I had better explain to hon. Members exactly what the position is. It is rather a peculiar position. Having proposed the Question, "That those words be there inserted," I see that a great many Amendments to the proposed Amendment have been put down, and that to several of them the same names are attached. I want hon. Members to understand that an individual Member can only move one Amendment, and can only second one Amendment, and that, having done so, he exhausts his right to speak on the Question, "That those words be there inserted." Of course, other Amendments can be moved by other Members, but the same Member cannot move more than one Amendment. or second more than one Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: My purpose in moving this Amendment is to ask for some discrimination between the sheep and the goats—between the speculator who deals in land and the genuine landlord. To illustrate the point, I will put a case of which I know in the Southern Counties, where there is an area ripe for development near a rising town. In that area recently—just over a year ago—a speculator bought an estate which had come into the market. He has done nothing to the estate since he bought it except let thistles grow. The adjoining estate is heavy, wet land which has belonged to the present owner for 25 years. He has done his best to keep it in good order, spending money on hedging, draining, ditching and fencing. He has had to pay rates and taxes and he is considerably out of pocket. If an Order was made under a scheme which gave equal benefit to both, there would be an equal claim against both owners, but surely their position is very different. A great deal of the increased benefit that the man gets who has had his estate for 10 years has already been discounted. It is rather similar to the case of a sweepstake where two men each win a £100 prize. One man has taken a ticket, worth 10s., and the other has taken 50 tickets, worth £25. They both get the same benefit, but they do not get the same increase in value. In the case of the sweepstake, it is only a question of the interest of the two men, but in the case
I have tried to picture, of the genuine landowner who has been there for 25 years and the speculator, it is different. In the case of the speculator it is selfish, and in the Case of the landlord who has been trying to keep his land in order, he has done something for the good of his country. I am a landowner, but, lest hon. Members should think I have an axe to grind, I should like to say that my own land is entirely rural and remote and is never likely to be the subject of a scheme, but if I were in the position that I might be mulcted for betterment I should feel it a great injustice if I was treated in exactly the same way as a land speculator, who had only just come in and bought the land. Finally, if the Clause stands as at present, with no preference given to the man who does his best for the land, it will be a definite discouragement to all those who own and those who want to buy land.

Mr. TRAIN: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I agree even more with the atmosphere of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech than I find myself able to agree with the conclusion that he has expressed in the Amendment. I am afraid it would be impossible of acceptance. The result of the Amendment would be that the betterment that a man would be called upon to pay would depend on the length of time for which he had owned the land. Clearly there is no connection between the two things at all. The amount of the betterment to be charged is entirely a question of fact—as to what is the actual betterment—and the betterment is enjoyed by the person who happens to be the owner of the land at the time. Those are the only two things that could possibly be considered—what is the amount of the betterment and who enjoys it? It is rather a curious assumption that a man is to be considered a good landlord because he has been there for more than 10 years, and a bad landlord if he has not been there for 10 years. It may often be true, but there is no reason why it should be true necessarily. A man may have been there for 100 years and may yet be a very bad landlord, and he may have been there for only a short time and yet may be a good landlord. In a practical world I think the arrangement of the Bill is really the only possible one.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 10, after the word "scheme," to insert the words:
and in respect of any injurious affection other than injurious affection immediately suffered.
In view of the Minister's statement, I will move this formally. I thank him for the great concession that he has made. I rather gathered from what he said that he regarded it more as a concession of appearance than of reality, but I do not feel that myself. I believe it to be a most valuable concession. I believe there are a large number of people who, before the concession, would have received an amount of compensation for an actual injury and would have to pay it straight back again by way of betterment through an increased value which might not accrue for a good many years. That cause of hardship is now removed and I thank my right hon. Friend.

Major MUIRHEAD: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I should like to make it clear in reply to the Noble Lord that I think this is a very substantial concession. What I meant was that I think the proposed Amendment as it stood was only in a rather fine point of theory, a departure from the principle that we arrived at in Committee, but, since I recognise that it was a departure from that principle, I feel bound to make the change even though it involves a substantial difference.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 12, after the word "claimed," to insert the words "by the responsible authority."
I do not quite know what the position is, but I understand that the Minister is at liberty to speak on each Amendment while others are not.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): When a Member is moving an Amendment, he is speaking to the original Question before the House; in other words to this very long Amendment in the
name of the Minister. But, once I have put the Amendment from the Chair, a new Question is before the House, so that the Minister is in point of fact on each occasion speaking to a new Question.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I understand that, each time a Question is put, any Member of the House is entitled to speak on each Amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes. Members who have not already spoken on an Amendment are entitled to speak on it. What they must not do is to move more than one Amendment or second more than one Amendment. A Member who has moved or seconded an Amendment cannot move or second another. I hope that is now clear to the House.

Sir S. CRIPPS: A Member is entitled to speak but must not move or second more than one Amendment to the Amendment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is correct. I heard Mr. Speaker lay down a Ruling on that point.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I misunderstood. I thought Members were only allowed to speak once on the whole Amendment.

This Amendment that I am moving is verbal. As the principal Amendment reads at present, there is rather a mix-up as regards whom the claim is by and the amount of each claim mentioned, and whether it is a claim for betterment or for compensation. This is to make it clear that it is the amount claimed for betterment that is spoken of and not the amount claimed for compensation referred to in line 11.

Sir H. YOUNG: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This Amendment will be an improvement, and I am able to accept it.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 19, to leave out the word "fourteen" and to insert instead thereof the word "seven."
I am grateful to the Minister for putting in a limit of 14 years, but I think seven would be very much better, because, the longer the time is, the more complication will arise if the property has been split up or has changed hands.

Major HARVEY: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I will ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to press this Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The period of 14 years has been selected after most careful consideration and consultation with experienced practical men of the type that have to deal with these questions. If the period is limited to seven years, we are not doing justice to the scheme as a whole because we limit it to a shorter period than that in which it is possible to trace the increased value of the land to the operation of the scheme. It would very much increase the element of chance, and, by doing that, you would be increasing the sense of inequity between various persons which would not make for smooth working.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 23, to leave out paragraph (c).
In spite of the argument used by my right hon. Friend, I still cannot agree that this proposal to charge betterment on the increased value for the purposes of a particular trade is one which is just or which will promote prosperity or good business in the future. It seems to me that it imports a new elements of risk and uncertainty into the conduct of every business in the country, and I am surprised that my right hon. Friend should attempt to collect betterment assessed in this way. It means that every business throughout the country which is fortunate enough to have an increased turnover in any district where a town planning scheme has come into operation may be faced with a demand for 75 per cent, of the capitalised value of that increased turnover, which might amount to many hundreds or even thousands of pounds. The proprietor of the business will be faced with the necessity of contesting the claim before an arbitrator and, although in the end the amount to be paid may not be large, great uncertainty and a feeling of insecurity and instability must be created. I would remind my right hon. Friend of what occurred in one well-known case where betterment was collected. It is the well-known London Bridge case where a claim for betterment was made owing to
the coming into operation of a scheme. A sum of £20,000 was collected in betterment. The ratepayers of the London County Council were no better off, because the law costs in securing the £20,000 amounted to £25,000, and they were, in fact, £5,000 out of pocket. The individual property owners who were charged betterment were £20,000 out of pocket, plus whatever sum their law cost amounted to, presumably not much less than the law costs of the London County Council, say, round about £25,000. The property owners were thus £45,000 out of pocket, and the ratepayers were £5,000 out of pocket. The only people who. gained were the arbitrators, the lawyers and others who appeared in the case. The surveyors possibly, and the town planning expert witnesses had their dip as well. That is an extremely unsatisfactory position, and to allow for any extension of a capital charge as heavy as 75 per cent, to be made upon the capitalised value of anything as uncertain as increased profit in trading extending, over a period of five years is wholly indefensible.
I realise that a case may be made out that it is hard for a particular individual to have to pay 75 per cent, while a corporation or multiple shop can carry on and get off scot free. Times are not so good that we need grudge anyone who is fortunate enough to increase his turnover or carry on a larger business and come upon him and stamp him down by imposing a capitalised tax of 75 per cent. Moreover, the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that the individual who carries on his trade escapes scot-free while the individual who sells land and realises benefit is not a fair assumption. Anyone who carries on increased trade attracts higher rates and a higher rate of taxation, and he does not get away with anything substantial. I wish to make it clear that we do not object to the collection of this tax from people who buy land for a rise, for on principle they ought to pay the full 75 per cent. If we pass paragraph (c) it will add greatly to the uncertainty and the risks, already great, of carrying on business of any kind.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I do not propose to recapitulate the arguments which I have already used, but wish to address two questions to the Minister and remind him once more that there is already a differentiation between this and the other sort of investor. Will the betterment which this man is called upon to pay be subject to tax? When he is making more money out of his business and therefore has to pay increased taxation, will he be taxed upon the money which he has to pay in betterment to the local authority? Upon what principles, if any, can the arbitrator assess this man? The right hon. Gentleman said just now that this was a matter to be left to the arbitrator. I cannot for the life of me see how the arbitrator is to discriminate between increased business turnover due to improvements, and increased turnover due to a return of trade, increased industry, change of proprietor or whatever it may be. I once more remind my right hon. Friend of the essential difference between realised betterment of a capital nature and realised betterment of this nature, in that the latter already pays taxation whereas capital betterment does not. It is well to remember that we often do these things in a light-hearted way. No one pays very much attention, and they slip through in a comparatively empty House like the present, and then they are quoted as precedents for exactions by hon. Gentleman opposite. I warn my right hon. Friend against allowing this sort of thing to creep into the Bill. I think that on reflection he will realise that there is a case, and I hope that either now or before the Bill reaches another place he will reconsider his decision.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I really fail to realise the argument which the Noble Lord and the hon. Member have put forward. I understand that they start with the premise that here is a property which has been improved in value by reason of work undertaken at the instance of the local authority. That apparently is the basis upon which they start.

Mr. BEAUMONT: The basis upon which the local authority start.

Sir S. CRIPPS: It is the basis upon which the Amendment proceeds. If there is no betterment, then we are discussing a case which does not fall within the
Amendment at all. We are discussing presumably cases falling within the Amendment. Therefore, there will be cases where property must have been improved by works carried out at the cost of the local authority. I cannot understand why, in the case of a garage run by a company, the company should escape a betterment which has to be paid by everybody else. That is the perfectly simple proposition which has been put forward. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head.

Mr. BEAUMONT: We both endeavoured to point out that betterment is a capital charge. This is in the nature of a charge upon income, and the two things are entirely different.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Really, the hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice. There is no such distinction at all. The disposition of property need not be by way of capital amount but by way of ground rent, which is an annual sum. The position of the person receiving ground rent will be precisely similar to that of the person receiving rent for the garage. Whether it is a garage or house makes no difference. It is an entirely false assumption that all payments from which betterment is to come will be capital payments. There may be payments under leases or payments on ground rent when a disposition takes place by either of those means.

Mr. BEAUMONT: The hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to the meaning and the effect of the Amendment. It does not cover the question of ground rent. It only covers the question of money made in the business from increased turnover—it is not a question of rental or the value of rent at all—which may or may not be the result of work done by the local authority.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I may have entirely misread the Amendment of the Minister. As I understand it his Amendment deals with the case of property, and under Subsection (3) the claim will be for 75 per cent. of the amount by which the property has been increased in value by the coming into operation of the provision. The property and the case taken is a garage; it is not a business. The arbitrator, as is always done in these cases, will ascertain the proper rental for the
garage, let me say, £50 a year. If he finds that by reason of the improvements the garage has become worth a £100 a year, the increase in the value of the property is £50 a year, and if he capitalises it at 20 year's purchase it will be £1,000. That will not bear any direct relationship to the actual amount of receipts which the man is getting from the business at the moment, whether it happens to be winter or summer, or whether they are good times or bad times. It will depend upon whether the new arterial road has made the property and the garage of more value or not. It is not a question whether the man happens to carry on more business, or whether he is a good or bad business man. This fact is not considered in respect of the increase in the value of property. As I understand the position—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me whether I am wrong—it always relates to land, but not always to the business carried on upon the land.

Mr. BEAUMONT: It is a matter of improvements. The whole principle of the Amendment of the Minister, and the Amendment which he has accepted is that betterment shall be paid only when it is realised. Paragraph (c) lays it down that this is realised for increased turnover, and we say that you cannot tell whether it is due to that or not, and that it is wrong to charge it. It should only be charged when betterment is realised as to sale or to lease.

Sir S. CRIPPS: As I understand the position, the garage is in the possession of a company which does not sell or lease it. It goes on with it. Therefore, either it will never pay betterment, or it will have to pay betterment at a certain period of time to be determined in some way or another. Otherwise, it completely escapes, and it escapes, not because it has not derived betterment from the scheme, but it escapes from the instant that it happens to be in possession of a company which is perpetually in succession and goes on for ever, and does not belong to an individual who has to sell or lease it at the end of a period of year3. That is the only difference, and yet the hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, yes. The man who has to sell it after a certain number of years is charged betterment to the full, but the company which does
not sell is not charged." I cannot understand what the argument is at all. It seems to me that it is either right or it is wrong to charge betterment to everybody who has a garage of this sort. It cannot be wrong in one case and right in another because of the incidence of the person in whose possession the garage happens to be. That seems to be the fallacy in the argument of the hon. Member. I believe that the Amendment of the Minister is perfectly justifiable, and that it will not inflict any hardship upon any one. Money for a period of five years will have been accumulated and with that money it will be possible to pay betterment; and if there is hardship, it can be spread over a further term of years under the Sub-section. I shall support the original paragraph (c).

5.30 p.m.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I should be glad if the Minister of Health or the Attorney-General would enlighten the House as to the real meaning of the Clause. I rather agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that the movers of the Amendment are not quite right, but I think that he, too, is not right. The view that I take is that the betterment is only assessable at the date of the coming into operation of the scheme and that payment is deferred, or may be deferred, on giving notice under Sub-section (I). Then, if there is no disposition, if the property is not dealt with, there is to be no payment of betterment under Sub-section 2 (a). It makes no difference up to that point whether the property in question is land, a house or a business. Then comes in Sub-section 2 (b). Again, if there is no claim within 14 years no betterment is to be paid if the occupation remains the same. For some reason or other, since the Committee stage, the Minister has chosen to differentiate—this is where I differ from the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, because the Minister seems to have gone back on what was arranged in Committee—between business premises and other premises, and he says that the demand for betterment shall not cease at the end of 14 years, but that there shall be power to the local authority to come along and claim in respect of business premises within 12 months after the expiration of five years.
If I am right in my interpretation, I would ask whether such a provision has ever been made in any Act of Parliament giving the right to betterment. How can it be fair that this should take place in regard to business premises 1 The premises may be let, probably are let, and the Minister is seeking to say that because the tenant has made a good business there, the owner by reason of that fact is to be made liable for payment of betterment, although he derives no benefit from that improvement and in regard to any other class of property he would not be liable for it. Such a provision surely needs justification. The question of a garage has been raised. Let us say that the garage belongs to "A" and has been let to "B." Why is "A" in that case to be made liable for the payment of betterment at an earlier time than any-one else I He may have got a tenant of whose business goodwill the Government seem to be availing themselves in order to claim, betterment. The betterment has already been assessed, and payment has been deferred. Why, then, because the tenant for the time being is someone who by the exercise of' his capacity for business has been making a profit, although the owner of the property cannot derive any profit, should a claim for benefit be put upon him in contradistinction to other owners of property? For these reasons, unless the Attorney-General can explain the matter satisfactorily, I shall vote for the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have not clearly apprehended what was the first question put by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). He described the Clause as if it were an attempt to obtain betterment upon a business. This Clause deals with property and Subsection (2, c) deals with property which is used for the purpose of a business or industry. If we bear in mind that the whole purpose of the Minister's alteration of Clause 21 is to give effect to the arrangement that no betterment should be paid until the time of realisation has arrived. I do not think that it will be difficult to appreciate the purpose of paragraph (c), to omit which an Amendment has been moved. The betterment of property which is used for the purposes of a business or industry, and is not property which comes under paragraphs
(a) and (b), is to be dealt with by a claim that must be made within a period of 12 months after the expiration of five years.
My hon. and learned Friend may differ as to the choice of five years. He may say that there is no reason why the betterment should be realised in such a case at the end of five years any more than at the end of one or two years. He may say—I understand he does say—that the period ought to be 14 years, as in the case of other property. The intention is to require betterment to be paid on a claim being made within 12 months after the expiration of five years in the case of a property which is being used for a business or an industry, and the reason is to provide for a case which otherwise would not come under either paragraphs (a) or (b). If paragraph (c) is not put into the Bill, a great number of properties will escape altogether, because there will neither be a disposition of the property under paragraph (a) nor an alteration in the use of the property under paragraph (b). Therefore, paragraph (c) is intended to provide for that case. My hon. and learned Friend may object to the period taken or to the case being dealt with at all, but it is a question for the House to consider whether they intend to allow such properties to escape altogether, or whether paragraph (c) is not the best and most reasonable method of dealing with the matter.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Why should business premises be distinguished from other premises or buildings?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The Minister of Health explained why paragraph (c) has been drawn in this way. Where premises are being used for the purposes of a business or an industry and there is nothing to entitle a claim to be made under paragraphs (a) or (b), then paragraph (c) is put into the Bill. The illustration which has been given of a garage is one illustration of many which might be given of cases where paragraph (c) would be required in order to make a property subject to betterment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: The last two speakers have convinced me that the case against paragraph (c) as it stands is very much stronger than I thought it
was. What action is going to be taken if this Clause becomes the law of the land in the case—and there will be many hundreds of cases—of a man carrying on a business on a tenancy for a considerable period of years, perhaps seven, 14 or 21 years, or even more? If his business improves owing to betterment being created by a town planning scheme, he is the man who benefits. His turnover increases because of the improvements, but he is not the man who will be called upon to pay the betterment charge. The betterment charge will come upon the owner of the property, who has let the premises very likely on a long term of years to the tenant. At the end of six years after a town planning scheme has been made the owner is to be called upon to pay a large sum of money because, theoretically, his property is improved in value, although financially he is none the better off.
The tenant is reaping the advantage of the improvement, if anybody, and the landlord is unable to recover from the tenant by increasing the rent until the lease expires in accordance with the improved value of the business. The tenant secures the advantage all the time by getting a better business, for which he does not pay, while the landlord who has let him the premises is to be called upon to pay the betterment. It may be said that if paragraph (c) is not put into the Bill, a business which is owned by a company will escape the payment of betterment. Sooner or later the lease of the premises will come to an end, and when a new lease is granted to a. new tenant it will be obvious what the betterment is. Then will be the time to recover the amount that is due on betterment. It is hardly just that the owner, who is debarred during the period of the lease from getting any increased financial benefit, should be called upon very likely to pay a large capital sum because his property has improved in value, although he may not be able to realise any portion of that value until 20 or 25 years or longer, when the lease expires and he is able to get something of the increased value by letting the property on better terms.
When the owner reaps the advantage by letting the property on better terms, in
accordance with the increased value, surely that is the time to collect the betterment. That is the only way in which to carry out the desire and intention of the Committee. You should not cripple a man or partially cripple him by demanding a considerable lump sum by way of a capital charge in payment of betterment until he is in a position to pay that money by having realised to a great extent the value of the betterment. The Minister said that he would facilitate the payment by allowing payment in instalments. It certainly would ease the position if the instalments were spread over a considerable number of years, but that does not meet my point that under this Clause, as far as I can see, in the majority of cases one man, the tenant, would receive the benefit of the betterment and another man, the owner of the property, would be called upon to pay for it without any possible chance of recovering from the tenant.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: By leave of the House, may I ask a definite question of the Minister? Take the case of a garage quoted by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) which, owing to the operation of a scheme such as the construction of a new road, makes an increased profit of £50 a year which he calculated would have a capitalised value of £1,000. Is it the case that in regard to a garage which gets an increased business of £50 a year owing to the operation of a scheme and has been making that profit for five years, which would amount to £250, that it then becomes liable to a debt of £750, plus whatever legal expenses may have been incurred in getting the amount reduced to that figure?

Mr. HOROBIN: I had imagined that I agreed with the Minister of Health and the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), but either the hon. and gallant Member for Northampton (Sir M. Manningham-Buller) or myself is inaccurate in the reading of a minor point regarding the Sub-section. As I understand it, this provision will have to be read in connection with the interpretation Clause, in which the owner in the case selected by the hon. and gallant Member will be the owner of a leasehold interest. Obviously, the owner of a freehold has no betterment and will
not be charged. Therefore, the difficulty that I see is exactly the reverse of that raised by the hon. and gallant Member. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the person who will be charged will be the holder of the leasehold interest.
Suppose you have a short lease of seven years, the owner of the leasehold will be quite fairly charged with betterment and will nave a fund out of which to pay it. The freehold reverts to the owner too late for a claim to be made against him, and he may have property in perpetuity trebled and quadrupled in value by a public improvement but nobody can make a charge for betterment against him. I may be wrong. If I am wrong, then the objection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Northampton is well-founded. If the hon. and gallant Member is wrong, then my objection is well-founded. Either the leaseholder is fairly charged and the landlord may get away with some boodle, or the hon. and gallant Member for Northampton is correct, in which case the freeholder may be faced with an enormous claim for betterment while his tenant is getting all the money.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Health has told us that this Sub-section will only apply to a few cases, but the Attorney-General said that it might apply to a large number of cases. In all fairness the Government should tell us whether it is to meet an occasional point or a vast number of cases. No one seems to know the real meaning of the Subsection, and as we want to see the Bill get through quickly, I think the Minister of Health might make a small concession, particularly as there seems to be so great a variety of opinion as to what the words really mean.

Sir H. YOUNG: Let me reply to the four specific questions which have been put to me. The hon. Member for Ayles-bury (Mr. M. Beaumont) asked whether the amount of betterment payment will be taken into account by the Income Tax collector. Income Tax is collected on the net profits of a business, and such things as rates are taken into account, as well as such matters as betterment charges. He cannot be charged twice over. Then as to the distribution of betterment charge between landlord and tenant, an interesting point put by the hon. and gallant Member for Northampton (Sir M.
Manningham-Buller). The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. From either party in the relation of landlord and tenant you can only recover in respect of betterment in proportion to his interest in the land. In the case of the landlord it would be the proportion of betterment represented by his reversionary interest in the land at the end of the lease. As regards direct betterment, you recover that from the tenant, who is in enjoyment of it, in proportion to the length of his lease. The arbitrator assesses the whole of the betterment charge and then apportions it between those interested in the land in proportion to their interest in the land.
The Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) put the case of a garage which is making profit, but what he thinks is an unfair possibility is a possibility which is quite impossible to occur in the realm of world affairs. No arbitrator, no assessor, would ever dream of assessing the increase in the value of land due to a scheme at 20 year's purchase of the actual increase of profits enjoyed between the date of the scheme and the date of the arbitration. That is a perfectly fantastic valuation. As regards the question put by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I should say that the number of cases involved is quite small in comparison with the total number of betterment cases.

Mr. CAPORN: The Minister of Health seems to differ from the late Solicitor-General in regard to what an arbitrator could or could not do. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) assumed that the arbitrator would say that £1,000 was the amount, and I submit that in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) it is very doubtful whether an arbitrator would not have to find that in fact £1,000 was the amount of betterment. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire definitely stated his assumption to be that £50 per year was the increase in value due to betterment. If £50 a year is the increased value due to betterment, then what is there in the Bill which will prevent an arbitrator saying that 20 year's purchase is the proper way in which to assess the capital value of that increase? Will the Government provide in the Bill that no
arbitrator shall have the right to say that 20 years' purchase is the right and proper way of assessing betterment?
Take the case of property which is let at a yearly tenancy. In those circumstances it is clear that the landlord will be the person responsible for the whole betterment charge, but under the Land-land and Tenant Act he may be unable to obtain possession of his premises and get an increased rent; at any rate, he may be unable to obtain possession of his premises without having to meet a claim under the Landlord and Tenant Act for improvements. In those circumstances, is he to be liable for £750 when, in fact, he cannot obtain possession of his premises and when he cannot pass on to the tenant any increased charges due to an improvement in the premises? I submit that there is so much doubt as to what this Sub-section means that there is not a Member who really knows what a court of law is likely to hold to be its meaning, and I suggest that the Minister of Health should withdraw it now and consider whether it is necessary to substitute something for it in another place.

Mr. TRAIN: I had not intended to take part in this discussion but for a statement made by the hon and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). If he is correct, then most other hon. Members are wrong. He gave us the case of a garage with betterment to the extent of £50 a year, and he calculated on a 20 years' purchase. That is, of course, the usual calculation as applied to land. But other hon. Members do not agree with the hon. and learned Member, and we have arrived at a state of great confusion on all sides of the House. If a man has a garage on a lease for 21 years, how can you apply anything in the nature of a ground burden to him? The landlord, the proprietor, of the land cannot get any more money until the expiry of the lease. Another man may come along and, because this garage is doing well, build a garage alongside it. He has to pay the betterment charge on the land; it is the land which bears the betterment charge. The man has to pay an extra £50 a year for the site on which his garage is built, whereas the man who has a lease of 21 years pays nothing; his landlord has to pay.
I quite understand the principle of betterment when applied to land. It is a simple proposition. If a development company comes along and develops land and there is betterment accruing, then there is a right to betterment, but I cannot follow the argument when applied to a business, which may be affected by an increase in the population or an increase in prosperity brought about by the action of a town planning authority. I should like some explanation as to which argument is correct. I should like to vote for the Amendment, but we have hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House putting forward different arguments, and unless the Minister can give us some good explanation of this Amendment, I hope he will withdraw it.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I, by the permission of the House, reply to the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train)? He is assuming the case where £50 a year is actually the increased value for 21 years. That increased value would be, as it were, the proved rental in the case of the man who has the lease, and after the expiry of the lease it would fall to the landlord. As far as the landlord is concerned, any profit out of the £50 increase is deferred for 21 years; and on the ordinary tables of calculation it would be reduced to a certain figure. The lessee of the land has a 21 years' term of that improved rental and, therefore, the total sum of betterment would be divided between the two in easily calculated proportions. Of these two sums the landlord would get only a small proportion and the lessee would get the major portion, because he, in fact, would be getting immediately the proved rental value for 21 years.

Mr. TRAIN: The question is, how is betterment to be applied to land? The hon. and learned Member tells us that it will be divided between the two, but the man who has the lease has no interest in the land at all.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Yes, for 21 years.

6.0 p.m.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I do not know whether on this question the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) can be considered as a sort of supernumerary adviser of the Minister of Health, but if he can it is
rather unfortunate that he was not here when his new chief made his declaration, because that declaration on this £50 garage case was diametrically opposed to the interpretation which the hon. and learned Member gave. The Minister ridiculed the suggestion of my Noble Friend that the garage proprietor who had a real interest in the value of this garage of £50 a year, an increment due to a scheme, would have £750 to find. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, no. No valuer would find on any such basis." I want to know on what basis any valuer can find if not on that basis or substantially that basis. If he finds on even half that basis, if he finds that the valuation is £375, then that decision would in effect be breaking the undertaking which I think that my right hon. Friend thought he had implemented in this particular Amendment, because he undertook that no payment for betterment should be made until the betterment could be realised. In that particular case the betterment would be paid when only half had been realised.
I have waited, and waited in vain, for some reason why business and industry should be put in a category worse than other things. It seemed to me that this Government's chief object in life was to promote trade and industry. When this Bill came before the Standing Committee we knew that it would most certainly have killed trade and industry, and we wore glad to find that the Minister was willing and anxious to collaborate with us in remedying its defects. I am sorry indeed that he has not seen his way to remedy this particular defect, but I hope that if he is unable to accept this Amendment now, possibly in another place he may find means of remedying what we believe to be a gross injustice.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Mr. EVERARD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 34, after the word "farming," to insert the words
or for charitable purposes or wholly or mainly for the purpose of public religious worship or as a churchyard or burial ground, or mainly or exclusively for the purposes of open-air games or recreation or as a private aerodrome licensed under the Air Navigation Act, 1920.
I move this Amendment because I consider that the objects which I seek to exclude from the betterment value are objects which are not of a speculative value and should not come under the Bill. They are objects which are extremely desirable in the general well-being.

Captain DOWER: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think my hon. Friend has moved this Amendment under a little misapprehension as to the effect of his words. It is quite true that the Clause in its original form, that is to say the words which we have now left out of the Bill, mentioned cricket grounds and playing fields, to which my hon. Friend has referred. But the object of the part of the Minister's Amendment which my hon. Friend seeks to amend provides that no claim shall be made in respect of a change in the use of the property when the use is only a change from one form of agriculture to another form of agriculture. My hon. Friend seeks to put into the Clause words which will add to the different descriptions of agriculture, and words referring to charitable purposes and churchyards and open-air camps and so on. Really, those words do not refer to uses of the same character as agricultural uses, and I think they are out of place and not necessary. If the words were inserted the only effect would be to provide for no claim being made in the case, for instance, of land which was used for one of the agricultural purposes mentioned being changed to use as a burial ground. I do not think that is my hon. Friend's intention.
Similarly, if his words were inserted the effect would be to provide that where land was used for the purposes of a cricket ground but was diverted for use as a burial ground, no claim could be made. I do not think that that is the intention. My hon. Friend's intention, broadly speaking, is to provide that no claim shall be made in respect of land which is being used for purposes of recreation or as playing fields. As the Clause stands that purpose will be effected. As long as land is being used for charitable purposes and continues to be so used, no claim will be made in
respect of betterment. Of course if it is diverted from charitable purposes to what may be commercial purposes, such as an aerodrome or a burial ground, then a claim for betterment could be made on the assumption that that had in fact taken place. The cases are not likely often to arise where the use of ground for charitable purposes is changed to agricultural purposes. But even if such a case was likely to occur often, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not suggest that that was a case, assuming the principle of betterment, in which a claim for betterment should not be made. It is unnecessary, I think, to carry out my hon. Friend's most admirable purpose, with which the Government are in full agreement, that these words should be inserted. The Clause really does effect what is his purpose.

Mr. EVERARD: Take the position of private aerodromes. Suppose that there are eight or nine fields of agricultural land, and the owner of these fields has got a private aerodrome, which may well be for the general advantage of the country in peace or in war, particularly in time of war. It is extremely hard that he should have to pay betterment value when to all intents it is exactly the same land as before.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If my hon. Friend wants legislation to facilitate the conversion of land at present used for one purpose or another into aerodromes, it will be for the House to consider what privilege it will attach to the use of grounds for aerodromes, but this Bill is not the place to provide facilities of that kind in connection with land used for aerodromes. My hon. Friend suggests that it might be for the public advantage that agricultural land should be taken for an aerodrome. I am not so sure. It might or might not be. It depends on the class of agriculture in operation on the land. The answer, broadly speaking, is that if you are going to deal with aerodromes and to facilitate the creation of aerodromes, it must be done in a Clause other than one dealing with betterment.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to understand what the result of the Clause will be. It is true that the
Clause is very complicated. One has to read it 25 times to make any sense of it. We see no reason why we should not put back into this Clause all the various things that were in the original Bill. I understood that in moving his Amendment the Minister said that it preserved the original exemption. It does not do so. Suppose that you have a ground used for charitable purposes and in future used for a cricket ground. Why not? Or take the case of meadow land to be turned over to charitable purposes. You should be allowed to do that without betterment being incurred. I do not think the explanation given by the Government covers the point at all. The learned Attorney-General did not seem to understand what we mean.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Mr. MOREING: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 35, at the end, to insert the words;
and
(ii) under paragraphs (b) or (c) of this Sub-section in the case of property belonging to a statutory undertaker.
It is a coincidence that we should pass from considering the case of burial grounds to considering the case of a statutory undertaker—undertaker in this case in a very different sense from that in which we shall all meet the word one of these days. The purpose of the Amendment to the Amendment is to provide in this Clause what was originally included in another Clause of the Bill which was amended in Committee. In Clause 21 of the Bill as originally drawn betterment will have to become liable at an early date. Therefore certain provisions were put into a later Clause, Clause 25, to deal with the case of property which was not property actually subject to the usual laws relating to development or the sale or dealing in land. The property dealt with in Clause 25 was property belonging to statutory undertakings such as railway companies, docks and harbour boards, canals, electric power companies and waterworks. Under the Clause as it is now drawn, under Sub-section (2), paragraphs (a) (b) and (c), certain rules are set out, and the Minister puts in a provision that no claim shall be made under paragraph (c) of the Sub-section in the case of certain property. We hope to have that prin-
ciple extended to the case of land belonging to statutory undertakers so long as it remains the property of the statutory undertakers.

Sir H. YOUNG: It may shorten the discussion if I tell the hon. Member that I propose to accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 47, after the word "value" to insert the words:
by the coming into operation of the provision or by the execution of the work in respect of which the original claim was made.
Sub-section (4) of the Minister's proposed Amendment provides for the case of a claim made, on a change taking place in the use of the property, but it does not explain what is meant by "a change taking effect."

Mr. RHYS: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I think this Amendment will improve the drafting of the Bill, and I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 55, after the word "made," to insert the words "or his predecessor in title."
This Sub-section of the Minister's Amendment provides that in assessing the amount payable in respect of any property, account shall be taken of any gift of land or money or any concession made by any person against whom a claim under the Section in respect of the property is made․—

Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am prepared to accept this Amendment also, but I suggest that there is no reason why my hon. and gallant Friend should limit it to "predecessor." Why not "predecessors"?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I would prefer the word suggested by the Minister
and I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment in that form.

Amendment, to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made to the proposed Amendment: In line 55, after the word "made," insert the words "or his predecessors in title."—[Sir G. Courthope.]

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 22.—(Making of claims for compensation or betterment.)

Amendment made: In page 32, line 38, leave out the words "the two next following Sub-sections," and insert instead thereof the words "this Section."—[Sir H. Young.]

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 33, line 10, after the word "at," to insert the words "or within two years before."
This is one of the series of Amendments to which I referred earlier in the day extending the provisions as to "existing buildings," so as to cover a building which was on the site within two years before the material date. This series of Amendments will carry out more effectively our intention in that regard than could be done by the alteration of the definition of "existing building."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 33, line 24, after the word "and" insert the words:
where the building is standing at the date on which the scheme comes into operation.

In line 25, leave out the word "existing."

In line 29, leave out the word "existing."

After the word "demolished," insert the words:
 or the date on which the scheme comes into operation, whichever last occurs.

In line 34, after the word "shall" insert the words:
if the building is standing at the date on which the scheme comes into operation.

In line 36, leave out the word "existing."

Leave out the words "on that site."

In line 40, leave out the word "existing."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

CLAUSE 23.—(Determination of claims and recovery of amounts due.)

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 34, line 37, to leave out the words "or a general development order."
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the decision that general development orders are not to carry any right to compensation or betterment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 35, line 11, to leave out Sub-section (4).
This Amendment omits Sub-section (4), which makes betterment a charge on the land, and which has already been explained to the House.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am not certain as to what the position is going to be after the omission of this Sub-section. It was originally inserted in order that speculators who were in possession of land might not clear out when a town planning scheme was made and leave the local authority without any redress as regards the betterment charge. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the vendor would be looked to for the betterment. That seems to be exactly the type of case which Sub-section (4) was intended to cover in the original Bill. A speculator in a developing area where there is a town planning scheme, or where there is likely to be a town planning scheme, would be able to clear out and disappear with the money for which the land had been sold, and the local authority would be left without any redress. I wish to ask what security will the local authority have instead of that Sub-section. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to substitute for it? I presume that he is not going to leave the local authority at the mercy of the speculator and we should like to know what is his alternative to Subsection (4)?

Sir H. YOUNG: If the betterment becomes a personal debt upon the vendor of the land and not a charge upon the land then, as I understand it, there is no security except the personal security of the vendor himself, but it is considered that in the new circumstances as regards the recovery of the betterment debt, that will not be any appreciable disadvantage. A debt upon the land would fall upon the purchaser and not upon the vendor, and there would be a
charge by the purchaser against the vendor which would necessitate a cumbrous series of adjustments. In these circumstances, it is thought that to make the betterment a charge on the land would be impracticable. The betterment will be recoverable as a debt from the vendor and you will have the vendor in possession of the purchase money of the land which puts him in a position to pay the debt․—

Sir S. CRIPPS: If he does not get away.

Sir H. YOUNG: At any rate ad hoc and to the extent of the debt he is ex hypothesi solvent, but in view of the criticism of the hon. and learned Member I will give some further consideration to the matter in order to make sure that we are securing the position as far as it can be secured in view of the new conditions.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Power to withdraw or modify provisions of scheme after award of compensation.)

Amendments made: In page 35, line 35, leave out the word "owner," and insert instead thereof the word "claimant."

In line 36, leave out the words "section 18 (c)," and insert instead there of the words "paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of section eighteen."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

CLAUSE 25.— (Acquisition of land to which scheme applies.)

Amendments made: In page 36, line 14, after the word "any," insert the word "such."

Leave out the words "so comprised."— [Mr. E. Brown.]

Captain WATERHOUSE: I beg to move, in page 37, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that they shall not be authorised to purchase compulsorily any land abutting on a new street or an existing street as proposed to be widened under the scheme for the purpose of securing the development or redevelopment of such land, but nothing in this Section shall prejudice or affect the operation of the Public Health Acts.
6.30 p.m.
This Clause has two distinct parts. The first part deals with the power of a local authority to purchase land by agreement, and to that provision of course nobody
will offer any objection. The second part however gives compulsory power to a local authority, for the acquisition of land where agreement cannot be reached and it seems to me that the House ought to be very careful in handing out new, large and expensive powers of this kind to local authorities at a time like the present. Under the various Public Health Acts local authorities have ample powers to buy what lands are necessary, contiguous to streets which are being developed. I think they can buy land up to 200 feet of the crown of the road, but in this Bill powers are being conferred which will enable them to buy almost any land they like in any part of a town or city. The first Sub-section of the Clause lays down that a responsible authority may purchase by agreement any land to which a scheme applies which they require for the purposes of the scheme. The second Sub-section gives them power to buy that same land compulsorily and not by agreement. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) referred a short time ago to the dangers of speculators in land. Speculators may, possibly, be a danger inherent in this dreadful capitalist system under which we live, but can my hon. and learned Friend suggest anything more horrible and vicious than a local authority which starts speculating? The ordinary speculator speculates with his own money or with the money which somebody has been foolish enough to lend him. The local authority on the other hand is speculating with money which has been sucked from the vitals of industry. If it loses on its speculation the loss goes on the rates. If it gains, the profit does not go to the relief of rates, but is merely loosed off in fresh and extravagant expenditure. Such a vista is not one which can encourage any hon. Member of this House in this year of grace to support such a proposal, and I earnestly hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree most strongly that every word of my hon. and gallant Friend is worthy of the Minister's earnest attention, in view of the possibility that among the other crimes certain to be committed
under this Bill will be added the new one of municipal gambling, and that by a Parliament that is refusing even to allow the open form of municipal lotteries. To sanction local government gambling through a Town Planning Bill is so awful that even the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I should think, would be loath to agree to it. I suggest in all seriousness that these local authorities, of whose praises we hear so much, need a very strong curbing hand in this matter of the compulsory acquisition of land. Their powers have not been used justly in all cases in the past, and I have no reason to suppose that they will be used any more justly in the future, and if you give them power, in the so-called interests of so-called planning, to gamble in land, you are doing something which is not desired by the Government or even by the Opposition. I ask the Minister to safeguard the position by accepting the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: Certainly, if I thought there was any real possibility of the dangers so eloquently referred to by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, I should be, in the popular phrase, "shaken to the core" by the prospect, but they will remember that this matter was discussed a good deal in Committee, and I think that on that occasion we were able to remove misapprehensions as to the scope and possibilities of the use of this Clause. It is quite impossible that under this Clause municipalities should do other than pick up bits of land here and there which are necessary for them in order to carry out their planning schemes. In the first place, they are doing it tinder the strict control in this matter of the Ministry, which still counts for something, and, secondly, they could not, of course, indulge in large operations of the sort without borrowing, and they would not be able to acquire loans for the purpose. This provision is really in line with the general law. There are many precedents for it, and I hope the House will come to the conclusion that it is a useful little provision. It enables a local authority to acquire land for the purposes of town planning schemes on a frontage otherwise than by agreement, and the effect of the Amendment would be to confine it only to acquisition by agreement, It is essential to wage warfare on the worst of the abuses upon
which planning is designed to make war—of which one of the worst is ribbon development—and without some such power there would be no effective method of dealing with the matter. It is necessary, in order to get full value out of the great highways, to give local authorities adequate power of control over frontage development, and indeed it is necessary in order to protect owners from unfair depreciation, owing to the dog-in-the-manger who stands out and will not go in for a sensible, reasonable development. For all these reasons I think the House will probably be prepared to confirm the view taken by the Committee, which would involve not accepting the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 33.—(Power of Minister to require preparation or adoption of scheme, and to require execution of scheme.)

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 41, line 36, to leave out the words "of the authority."
This Amendment and the following Amendment are drafting Amendments consequential on the Amendment made to Clause 6 in Committee requiring all Resolutions to be approved by the Minister.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I should like to ask how in the wide world the Minister reconciles this Clause with the very definite and categorical assurances on which he secured the unopposed Second Reading of the Bill from the House, when he said:
In the second place, this is a Bill which is not to promote bureaucracy, but to promote liberty. Consequently, this is not a Bill of compulsion, but one of permission. It is a Bill simply to put powers which the people want into their hands to use as and when they desire to use them. It is not a Bill to force action down the throats of the local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1932; col. 41, Vol. 261.]
We have never had a full House on this Bill since my right hon. Friend made his speech on the Second Reading. Hon. Members think, and think rightly, that this is a technical subject, and they hesitate either to take part in our Debates on the Bill or even to come into the House; but I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, on this Amendment, how he reconciles these words, which deceive—

Sir S. CR1PPS: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the Noble Lord to discuss the Clause on this Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should say not, but I was trying to understand what the Noble Lord was discussing.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I have every confidence, Sir, that you will be able to use your powers without assistance from the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). On the question of the Amendment, I was asking how the Minister can reconcile his speech on the Second Reading with either the Clause or any Amendment thereto which, for from making the Bill permissive, lays it down definitely that he shall have power to require any local authority to prepare a plan, or if it does not do so, to prepare a plan for it and to charge it with the expense. That cannot be described as purely permissive, by any stretch of the imagination, and it is on those terms and on those terms alone that my right hon. Friend secured the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I desire to associate myself with the remarks of my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington). If the House would study the last Amendment to this Clause, it would see that the Minister is required to furnish a copy of the report made to him, and—

Sir S. CRIPPS: That Amendment has not yet been moved.

Mr. BEAUMONT: The hon. and learned Member opposite, who evidently fancies himself as a proper and able person to conduct these Debates, says that that Amendment has not been moved, but I understand that the Minister mentioned these three Amendments together. If that is not so, I will postpone my remarks on the point.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendments should be disposed of one at a time.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 41, line 37, at the end, insert the words:
passed by the authority and approved by the Minister."—[Sir H. Young.]

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 42, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
(5) The Minister shall furnish a copy of the report made to him by the person who holds a local inquiry directed by this Section to every authority concerned and, on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the Minister, to any person interested.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: With reference to this Amendment, and with the permission of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—

Sir S. CRIPPS: Granted.

Mr. BEAUMONT: —I should like to ask how the Minister reconciles this Amendment with the declaration which was read out by my Noble Friend just now.

Sir H. YOUNG: Perhaps I may assist my hon. Friend and bring his speech into order by pointing out that this Amendment has nothing to do with the previous Amendment. It carries out a pledge made in Committee to furnish the report made on any local inquiry held as a preliminary to default proceedings. It therefore covers a very narrow point and carries out the undertaking to publish the report.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: Can publication of these reports be carried out without expense, and therefore would it not increase the charge?

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 34.—(Regulations as to procedure.)

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in page 43, line 11, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
This Clause makes provision for regulations as to procedure. As it stands at present, the Clause imposes no obligation on the Minister to make regulations at all, though it is clearly intended that he should make them. If the House will look at the appropriate Schedule, the Fourth Schedule, it will be seen that it speaks there of—
Matters in relation to which regulations shall be made, and effect to be secured there-by.
I think that states briefly what I have to say on this Amendment, but I would remind the House that in the Act of 1825 there was, in Section 5, a provision that the Minister may make general provisions, which provisions shall take effect
as part of every scheme. He made the provisions in the form, I think, of Standing Orders, but I forget exactly what they were called. I think this is a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter, and I think it is essential to good management that the word "shall" should be put in here.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Bill without regulations would be very difficult indeed to interpret, and I therefore hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. E. BROWN: I think there is some misapprehension here. I share the desire of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and if he looks at the Amendment lower on the Paper, he will see that in fact we propose to amend Sub-section (2) of this Clause by requiring that regulations shall be made under Sub-section (1). The object of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment will be met by that Amendment.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: If the Minister tells me that his Amendment has the same effect as mine, I will ask leave to withdraw mine.

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 43, line 14, to leave out from the second word "orders," to the word "and," in line 16.
This Amendment and the next Amendment are to carry out what I have just explained.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 43, line 19, leave out Sub-section (2), and insert instead thereof the words:
(2) Regulations shall be made under Sub-section (1) of this Section in relation to the matters specified in the headings of the several paragraphs of Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, and those regulations shall, subject as provided in Part II of the said Schedule in relation to the matters specified in the heading thereof, be to the effect stated in those paragraphs respectively."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

CLAUSE 35.—(Local inquiries.)

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 44, line 21, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) The Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, appoint a person to act as an inspector for the purpose of conducting a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this Act and may confer on the person so appointed any of the powers conferred on an inspector of the Ministry of Health for the purposes of inquiries held under the Public Health Act, 1875.
This Amendment carries out a pledge which was given to the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) on the Committee stage. It enables the Minister to appoint a person, other than an officer of the Department, to hold a local inquiry and to arm him with the powers of an inspector; for example, the power of summoning witnesses and calling for documents.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I beg to move, in page 44, line 21, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) The report of the person holding the inquiry shall be made available to the parties concerned and to the newspaper Press, and in important cases shall be officially published by the Minister.
The object of this Amendment is quite clear. It is necessary that the reports of the inspectors whom the Minister sends down to inquire into schemes shall be available to any interested person. When we discussed an Amendment not dissimilar to this upstairs, we had not the advantage of having before us the report of the excellent Committee on the Minister's powers presided over by Lord Donoughmore. Having carefully perused that report, the Minister may have modified the views which he expressed upstairs, because in several material particulars they were diametrically opposed to those of the Committee. The Committee took evidence on both sides, and said that those who appeared before them might well be in doubt as to whether a true picture of the representations made at local inquiries ever got to the Minister at all. I know that to be the case from my own experience. It often happens that an inspector is obviously sympathetic to some particular line which is put to him, and those who hold that line think that they have his ear, and, thinking that they have convinced him, take it almost for granted that their case will carry conviction with the Minister. They often have a nasty shock when they find that the case has gone dead against them,
and they feel that possibly there were other arguments which they might have adduced but which they did not.
It seems to be contrary to the whole spirit of British justice that an inspector, who is in a way in a semi-judicial position—the Minister is the judge, but the inspector is the assessor on whose opinion the Minister frames his judgment—should be able to make a purely confidential report to the Minister. In Committee the Minister laid great stress on the importance of getting confidential reports of this sort. It is therefore rather striking to find that Lord Donoughmore's Committee said:
In our opinion, this should never be done in the case of an inquiry preliminary to a judicial decision.
I submit that in many cases the decision that the Minister has to take is to all intents and purposes a judicial one, for example, when he is deciding, under Clause 19, what particular provisions he will exclude from compensation. The Donoughmore Committee came to the definite conclusion that, on balance, publication was right. I hope, too, that the Minister, having had time for reflection, has come to a similar decision. He said earlier in these discussions that town planning must be worked by co-operation. We entirely agree with him. By far the best way to get co-operation is to avoid all possibility of mistrust and to take away all chance of it being thought that hole-and-corner work is taking place in preparation of a scheme. The best way to do that is to have everything clear and above board. The inquiry is in public, the representations and the evidence are made in public, and it is only right and fair that the facts which are to be placed before the Minister should also be available to the public. If they are not, no body of people and no person who go before the inspector with a case are at all sure that their case has been adequately placed before the Minister.

Mr. MOREING: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: This Amendment recalls an interesting and full discussion which we had on this question in Committee, the result of which was that a similar Amendment was withdrawn by its Mover. In reply to the appeal made by my hon. and gallant Friend, I am afraid
that I can only say that, on further reflection, I feel that the views and arguments which I then expressed are justified. In fact, I have confirmed them. What exactly is the nature of the case here? The inspector goes down and holds an inquiry into the rights and interests involved, and into the question whether there shall be a town planning scheme or not. Then he reports to the Minister. This is not, except by a curious extension of the meaning of the word, a judicial inquiry. It is an administrative inquiry to be decided according to administrative policy. Who is in our constitutional and administrative practice the person to whom we entrust that administrative policy? It is the Minister, with the assistance of the civil servants in his Ministry who perform the skilled and expert service on these matters of administrative policy. In the first place, therefore, the decision is administrative and not judicial, and that takes it out of the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee.
In the second place, the person responsible is not the inspector, but the Minister. The Minister has to discharge these functions; he is responsible to the locality for seeing that the functions are properly discharged and that right decisions are taken; and the Minister is responsible to this House for the discharge of his functions under the Bill. This House should think once and twice again before it does anything which would have the effect of weakening the authority of the Minister to discharge his functions under responsibility to this House. That is surely the foundation stone of the Constitution. As a matter of practical common sense, do we not know that if we deprive the Minister of his power to get a confidential report from the inspector who is holding the inquiry, we really deprive him of a large part of his responsibility and authority? If we insist upon the publication of the report—there may be conditions where the matter is not appropriate for publication—do we not know, in the world of commonsense, that we make it extremely difficult for the Minister to do anything but what the inspector tells him? The Minister ought not to be tied down to do what his inspector tells him to do. He ought to discharge his functions and responsibilities himself.
There is an idea that the Minister in fact does nothing about these things. That is untrue. In these matters affecting the intimate interests of persons and of communities, it is an established practice, which has certainly continued during my short time, that the Minister shall give his own close personal attention to them and come to his own decisions upon them. It will be a long step in the wrong direction to do anything which will have the effect of substituting an inspector for the Minister, with his personal responsibility to this House, on matters which are not judicial but are administrative. I appreciate the argument that on judicial matters where a judicial decision is to be taken, the decision must be made by the man who sits in the court and hears the evidence, and there are many matters in the extremely interesting and valuable report of the Donoughmore Committee which require consideration and decision, but they require consideration and decision in a wider scene and in other aspects than on the very small front of a Town Planning Bill. For these reasons, here as in Committee, I shall find myself unable to accept the Amendment.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I hesitate to charge the Minister with inconsistency, and therefore I do not do so. I will point out, however, that only to-day we have done something which seems to be inconsistent with what he has said. Under Clause 33 (1) the Minister can hold a local inquiry, and if satisfied that a scheme ought to be prepared by any authority, can give orders to the authority to make a scheme. Further, in Subsection (3), if the Minister is satisfied, after holding a local inquiry, that any authority has failed to adopt a scheme proposed by owners of land in a case where a scheme ought to be adopted, he may order the authority to adopt the scheme proposed. Again, in Sub-section (4), if the Minister is satisfied, after holding a local inquiry, that a responsible authority has failed to enforce effectively the observance of a scheme which has come into operation or has failed to do a number of other things, the Minister may by order require the authority to do those things. The decision in these cases are not judicial, and yet the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the
Minister proposed an Amendment to that Clause laying down that
The Minister shall furnish a copy of the report made to him by the person who holds a local inquiry directed by this section to every authority concerned and, on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the Minister, to any person interested.
7.0 p.m.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he reconciles what he has said with what the Parliamentary Secretary said when proposing this Amendment. If a report is to be furnished in those three or four cases that I have quoted, which concern some of the most important duties that the Minister has to perform under the Bill, why should not a report of other inquiries that have to be made be published? For the sake of uniformity, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be better to accept the Amendment. Why should the report of an inspector be kept secret and locked up in the Minister's breast, and those reports which are given in far more important cases be supplied to any person interested? I entirely agree with the Mover of the Amendment about the report on the powers of Ministers. There is a feeling throughout that report that it is wrong that important decisions affecting the property and possessions of a subject should be taken privately, either by Ministers or their subordinates, that such concealment is not good government, and that publicity and information ought to be given wherever possible. In the spirit of its recommendations I again urge that we should have uniformity in this Bill and that these reports should be made available to those concerned.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: The Minister made the same defence today as he did in Committee, and I am as little satisfied with it now as I was then. These are Star Chamber methods by which the person concerned does not see what has happened. Although the Minister may direct the person concerned to pay all or a proportion of the costs, he cannot see the report. That is not my idea of justice. The Minister referred to the fact that the Amendment was withdrawn in the Committee stage, but that was due to the assurance which the Minister gave that on Report he would move the Amendment which he
has moved on Clause 33. That does not go far enough, and we would like to see this Amendment carried.

Sir H. YOUNG: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that the Amendment to Clause 33 does not carry out my undertaking?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: No, but it does not go far enough, and therefore I urge that this Amendment should be carried.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: The Minister resisted this Amendment largely on the ground that it would be unwise to interfere with the Minister's private information and decision on administrative matters. It is true that in the past that information has not been published, but one reason is that the administrative matters over which he has had jurisdiction have been considerably less important than those dealt with by this Bill. Very grave matters can be dealt with under this Measure. The working of a new discovery of a mineral may be entirely prohibited under some Clauses of this Bill and the decision would rest with the Minister. It is becoming increasingly difficult, even when Minister's decisions are unjust—and they are unjust sometimes, no matter what Government is in power—to bring proper attention to bear on the injustices done.
Members of this House do not want to waste their time on considering whether a village should be in one county or another, but when it comes to important matters of the development of large areas of property and of the question where the main seats of industry should be, it is essential that not only should there be an opportunity of questioning the Minister's decision but that the House and public should know on what grounds the decision was taken. If the House is to give wider powers over the life and industry of the country into the hands of local authorities and of individual Ministers, thus making a wide departure from anything done before, then this is a good occasion to lay down the rule that decisions on broad matters of policy should be taken on information which is made public. The country can then know on what principles these decisions are made and whether it is getting the justice and the equity it has a right to demand.

Mr. GREENWOOD: It pains me to find myself sharing in any degree the views of hon. Members who have spoken on this Amendment. It is the first and probably the last time that we shall share views in common. I do not agree with the wording of the Amendment, but there is another place where it can be improved. Nor do I regard the report of the Donoughmore Commission as having all the authority of Holy Writ, but I feel somewhat impressed by the arguments hon. Members have used on this Amendment and very little impressed by the arguments of they Minister himself. This desire for secrecy is one which has never been carried out in the case of far more important inquiries which affect a wider range of industries. The logic of the Minister's decision is that, if he sets up a committee of inquiry, he should proceed with his decision and never inform the House of the committee's report. If that principle had been carried out, there would have been no Donoughmore Report on which he could base his case and the House would have lost this wealth of argument. It is true that the Minister must be held responsible for these decisions, but is there any reason why a decision should not be made and the public be fully aware of the facts on which it has been made? Is it not a fact that in the case of the newest experiment, the Tariff Advisory Committee, the reports have to be published? But does that mean that the President of the Board of Trade can shelter behind the

backs of the Committee? He has to take final responsibility. I hope that the House will show greater courage on this matter than on some of the earlier Amendments, and we shall be glad to support them in the Lobby.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should not have intervened but for the fact that the last speech has greatly pained me. The right hon. Gentleman has deserted those principles of secrecy which were the guiding light of his life not long ago. This discussion began with a desire for reports to the people concerned, but it has grown until I see a desire for a universal report to practically every elector in Great Britain. There should be some balance on this question. I do not think the Minister would wish to hide anything detrimental to the people concerned. This Minister would not, but others might. We have to legislate in this matter and we have to rely upon what future Ministers may do to carry out the work of their Department. For that reason, after the very vicious character of some of the speeches, the House will be well advised, after having a very interesting and instructing Debate on this occasion, to follow the advice of the Minister rather than the red herrings which have been drawn across the Debate.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 240.

Division No. 212.]
AYES.
[712 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Price, Gabriel


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks, Aylesbury)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Remer, John R.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bracken, Brendan
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hirst, George Henry
Thorne, William James


Chalmers, John Rutherford
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Craven-Ellis, William
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Withers, Sir John James


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Milner, Major James
Lieut.-Colonel Aciand-Troyte and


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Mr. Moreing.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen



NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Allen, Rt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Atkinson, Cyril


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.


Albery, Irving James
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Aske, Sir Robert William
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)


Balniel, Lord
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Patrick, Colin M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hales, Harold K.
Pearson, William G.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Penny, Sir George


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hanbury, Cecil
Petherick, M


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n. Bilston)


Bossom, A. C.
Hartland, George A.
Pike, Cecil F.


Boulton, W. W.
Hasiam, sir John (Bolton)
Potter, John


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Broadbent, Colonel John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pybus, Percy John


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th"d., Hexham)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J, G.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Ramsbotham, Herwaid


Burnett, John George
Hornby, Frank
Ramsden, E.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ray, Sir William


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rea, Walter Russell


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Carver, Major William H.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cassets, James Dale
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rentoul Sir Gervais S.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Cazalet, Tholma (Islington, E.)
Janner, Barnett
Ross, Ronald D.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.SirJ.A.(Birm., W)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Ker, J. Campbell
Runge, Norah Cecil


Chotzner, Alfred James
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Clarke, Frank
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Clayton, Dr. George C. -
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Selley, Harry R.


Colville, John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cook, Thomas A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cooke, Douglas
Levy, Thomas
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lewis, Oswald
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Slater, John


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crossley, A. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Somerveil, Donald Bradley


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Mabane, William
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
McKie, John Hamilton
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major Alan
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maclean, Rt. Hn. sir D. (Corn'll, N.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dickie, John P.
Magnay, Thomas
Stevenson, James


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Maitland, Adam
Stones, James


Donner, P. W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Storey, Samuel


Doran, Edward
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Drewe, Cedric
Martin, Thomas B.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Dunglass, Lord
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sutcliffe, Haroid


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Elmley, Viscount
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Milne, Charles
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Morgan, Robert H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morrison, William Shepherd
White, Henry Graham


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Munro, Patrick
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Glossop, C. W. H.
North, Captain Edward T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nunn, William
Womersley, Walter James


Goff, Sir Park
O'Connor, Terence James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James



Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Captain Austin Hudson and Commander Southby.


Grimston, R. V.
Palmer, Francis Noel

CLAUSE 38.—(For the protection of statutory undertakers.)

Mr. MOREING: I beg to move, in page 45, line 26, to leave out the words "the use of."
I may explain that this Amendment and two others on the same Clause which stand in the name of myself and other hon. Members—in page 45, line 26, after the word "land," to insert the words

"or any building erected thereon," and in line 33, at the end, to insert the words "or building"—are really of a drafting nature, in order to make certain that we have secured protection for statutory undertakers.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. E. BROWN: I understand from my hon. Friend that some of the dock and harbour authorities in this country think that the words in the Amendments to which he has referred ought to be inserted to draw a distinction between land and buildings, and on consideration the Minister has decided to accept this Amendment and those following with the object of making the position quite clear. He thinks it is already clear, but this will make it abundantly clear.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am not quite sure to which words the hon. Member is referring. The first Amendment proposes to leave out the words "the use of," and I do not see how that can make any difference as to whether buildings are included. It seems to me the distinction is whether a provision in the scheme designed to apply to the use of land applies to the land itself.

Mr. BROWN: I was referring not only to this Amendment but to the other Amendments which follow. The whole effect of them, as I have said, is to make clear what we think is clear already.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am afraid that remark does not explain the point I was trying to make. At present the Clause is limited in the sense that it contains the words—
No provision contained in the scheme shall apply to the use of any land,
and now it is proposed to add the words—
or any building erected theron.
This Amendment proposes to omit the words "the use of" and in future the Clause will read—
No provision contained in a scheme shall apply to any land,
that is, not merely the use of the land but the land itself. If the omission of the words "the use of" is intended to broaden the prohibition, then certainly we should object to that prohibition being broadened. If not, it would seem to us that it is better to leave he words "the
use of" in the Clause, because that would make it quite clear, whereas their omission makes the position doubtful. If the Minister wants to make it clear that this applies to buildings it would be better to insert the words "or any building erected thereon," but I should have thought there must be a definition Clause which makes land include buildings, such as we usually have in Bills of this sort. If we were to insert an Amendment directly referring to buildings while leaving in the words "the use of," it would be perfectly clear to what the prohibition applies.

Mr. E. BROWN: I think the result of the omission of these words is not what the hon. and learned Member suggests. I understand that the omission of the words is a drafting necessity in order to make quite clear what we think is already clear. The Amendment has not the broadening effect which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.

Mr. GREENWOOD: We are getting a little bit confused by the advice which is given to us. No doubt the words "the use of" have some meaning, and perhaps the Attorney-General could give us a statement about them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not hear what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I did hear what the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I only wanted to know whether you agreed with what has been said.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I heard the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol say that if the words "or any building erected thereon" were included it was not necessary to leave out the words "the use of," unless there was some purpose behind it. Speaking for myself, I say quite frankly that I cannot see that there is any difference in the interpretation of the Clause whether the words "the use of" are left in or taken out. I suggest that if anyone has any real objection to their omission the House might leave them in. On the other hand if the hon. and learned Gentleman sees no real difference, I suggest that he should not take any objection to the Amendment in the form in which it has been moved. If the hon. and learned Gentleman sees any real objection, no
doubt he will explain it to the House. I can but give my advice, that it does not make any real difference whether the words are in or not.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 45, line 26, after the word "land," insert the words "or any building erected thereon." —[Mr. Moreing.]

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 45, to leave out the words from the first word "to," in line 27 to the word "is," in line 30, and insert instead thereof the words "any statutory undertakers and."
7.30 p.m.
This Amendment and certain consequential Amendments carry out pledges given by the Government in Committee. The effect of them is to put all statutory undertakers as defined in Clause 49 in the position in which railway companies are placed in the Bill as it stands. It is also necessary to provide for cases in which the Department supervising the statutory undertaking is not, as in the case of the railway companies, the Ministry of Transport. In some cases the Board of Trade is the Department and in other cases the Ministry of Health, and if any difference arises on that point the decision is, by a future Amendment, left to the Treasury.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 45, line 33, at the end, insert the words "or building."—[Mr. Moreing.]

In page 45, line 37, after the word "shall," insert the words:
where any Government department other than the Ministry of Health is concerned with the functions of the undertakers."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

In page 45, line 38, leave out the words "Minister of Transport," and insert instead thereof the words:
Secretary of State or other Minister in charges of that Department.

In line 38, leave out the word "persons," and insert instead thereof the word "undertakers."

In line 42, leave out the words "Minister of Transport," and insert instead thereof the words "Secretary of State or other Minister."

In line 42, at the end, insert the words:
(2) If, in connection with the giving by statutory undertakers of any consent under this Act, any question arises as to whether
any or as to which Government department is concerned with the functions of any statutory undertakers the question shall be referred to and determined by the Treasury whose decision shall be final."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 46, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (2).

This is also consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 39.—(Land in neighbourhood of Royal Palaces and Parks.)

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 46, line 16, to leave out the word "confirming," and to insert instead thereof the word "approving."

This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 42.—(Powers with respect to advertisements.)

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 47, line 1, to leave out the word "a," and to insert instead thereof the word "the."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 3, leave out the word "this," and insert instead thereof the word "a."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to move, in page 47, line 12, after the second word "the," to insert the words "owner and."
Notice should be served on the owner as well as on the occupier. Most owners would be only too glad to have an Order to remove advertisements and I think the owner ought to know.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am prepared to agree that the owners shall have a copy, as well as the occupier, and I propose therefore to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 48, line 3, leave out the third word "or," and insert instead thereof the word "and."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

In page 48, line 13, leave out the word "shall," and insert instead thereof the word "may."—[Sir H. Young.]

In page 48, line 13, after the word "authority," insert the words:
subject to such conditions as may be specified in the scheme."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Mr. MOREING: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I handed in a manuscript Amendment earlier in the day which I hoped might take the place of the one which I have already put upon the Paper. It is more detailed, and perhaps is not so drastic in its application. I should like to know whether I am entitled to move it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may now move his manuscript Amendment.

Mr. MOREING: I beg to move, in page 48, line 38, at the end, to insert the words:
(iv) in respect of advertisements or hoardings displayed or set up on or upon any railway station, yard, platform, or railway approach belonging to a railway company, or on or upon any dock, quay, pier, landing stage, wharf, lock or toll station belonging to any harbour, dock or canal undertaking.
If hon. Members will compare that Amendment with the one which stands in my name on the Order Paper, they will see that we are modifying our suggestion very much as regards advertisements that are to be displayed or set up on any land or buildings belonging to any statutory undertaker. Every hon. Member is well aware of the interest that is taken about the regulation and control of advertisements, which have been dealt with by previous Acts in this House, especially under the Advertisement Regulations Act, 1907, and the Advertisement Regulation Act, 1925. The Act of 1925 was passed after some 18 years' experience of the first Act, and was of a rather amplifying character. On the whole, those two Acts have been very well carried out and have been welcomed by the advertisers, local authorities, and the public.
It will be within the recollection of those Members who served on the Committee that a new Clause was to be introduced by the Minister and that is Clause 42, which is before the House at this moment. Clause 42 sets out very fully the position relating to the control and regulation of advertisements as far as they can be dealt with in town planning schemes. I think hon. Members will agree with me that those who are concerned with the advertising industry have gone very far indeed to meet those who are interested in town
planning. We have a new basis of regulations for advertisements that is going to be for the benefit of all concerned and to the guardianship of our scenery and the beauty of our country. I do not wish the Minister to think that, in moving this Amendment, I am trying to upset any agreement that has been made. I merely wish to safeguard certain provisions in the interests of those bodies of whom I have spoken this afternoon.
If hon. Members will turn to Clause 42, they will see that the powers conferred on the responsible authorities by Subsections (l) to (4) will not be exercisable in regard to certain advertisements that are set out. I need not detain the House by reading them, because they are set out in the new Clause. Section (4) of the Clause is only to apply generally the principles which have already been accepted by the Advertisement Regulation Acts to which I have referred, and by certain other private Acts of Parliament. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 1925 provides:
This Section shall not apply to the exhibition of advertisements on or upon any railway station, yard, platform, or railway approach belonging to a railway company, or except within the district of a Rural District Council upon any dock, quay, pier, landing stage, wharf, lock or toll station belonging to any harbour, dock, or canal undertaking.
I would like to point out to the House that a large number of those advertisements that are displayed upon railway stations or upon the properties of statutory undertakings are either advertisements relating to their business, such as time tables, fares, announcements of excursions, or they are in any case advertisements for the various resorts which are served by the railway companies concerned. In many cases they are an addition to the amenities of the neighbourhood, and not in any way a disadvantage. In certain places they are a legitimate source of revenue often wanted at the present moment by those people.
If we leave that question and turn from the general principle as laid down by the Act of 1925 to certain local Acts, we find that there are three methods by which advertisements are dealt with at the present moment in schemes analogous to those under town planning schemes and Acts. One is that it is provided that it shall not be lawful to erect any hoarding or similar structure to be used partly
or purely for advertisement purposes to a greater height than 12 feet. In the past three years a number of local authorities have been including such a Clause in their Bills such as in the Epsom Rural District Council Act and the Tamworth Corporation Act of last year. In those cases, provisions were inserted to protect the railway companies and their property, and those powers were extended to canal companies as well.
The second type of case is that where the local authority has the right to serve a notice on an owner whose property has a poster display which might be regarded as being disturbing to the amenities of the property. This power was included in the Epsom and Guildford Rural District Council Acts of 1930 and the Rom-ford Urban District Council Act, 1931. Every one of those Acts also provided an exception, protecting the railway companies and their property. The third method of procedure enacts that it shall not be lawful to erect or exhibit any advertisement upon any building or hoarding except with a licence with the corporation. That Clause was contained in the Liverpool Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1930.
There are also provisions expressly put in the Act protecting railway companies and their property and also the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board from the provisions of the Clause. The Amendment which I am moving is a new paragraph to Clause 42, and is not dictated by any desire to take powers which would offend against the principles of town planning or the amenities of our countryside. It is only to ensure in this Bill, where we are dealing with the question of a display of advertisements, that protection which has been assured to statutory undertakers in the past both by the Acts of Parliament dealing with advertisements, and by a large number of local Acts which I have quoted. I hope the Minister will see his way to support my Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am afraid I have not received any previous intimation of the reasons for this Amendment. Every effort has been made to meet the statutory undertakers in every possible and legitimate claim that they made. I cannot but think it was ill advised that they
should make a claim which would put them in a purely privileged position, and in a manner which would differentiate them from other commercial undertakings. Why should a statutory authority be able to make a nuisance of themselves upon a railway station, yard or other place belonging to a railway company, or upon a dock, pier, landing stage, etc., when they are not allowed to do it anywhere else? I am unable to understand what is the basis of the Amendment in advancing the claim that the statutory undertakers should be put in a privileged position.
Further let me point out that statutory undertakers have, under Clause 38 of the Bill, special rights distinguishing them from other classes, including a special right of appeal against any provision proposed in a scheme on the ground that it is an illegitimate interference with them in the carrying out of their own undertaking. In these circumstances, I think it would be quite wrong to place them, with respect to the provisions of the Bill which deal with advertisements, in a different position from any other undertaking. The provisions of the Bill with regard to advertisements are very much circumscribed, and there is ample protection for the special interests of statutory undertakers, so that I think they ought to be put, so far as possible, in the same position as anyone else with regard to this matter.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 49, line 5, leave out the words "during that period," and insert instead thereof the words "at that date."—[Sir H. Young.]

CLAUSE 44.—(Expenses of, and borrowing by, local authorities.)

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 50, line 11, after the word "resolution," to insert the words "which has taken effect."
This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon an Amendment made in Committee to Clause 6, which lays it down that a resolution shall require the approval of the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 45.—(Special provisions as to the administrative county of London.)

Amendment made: In page 52, line 13, leave out Sub-section (5).—[Mr. M. Beaumont.]

CLAUSE 46.—(Compensation to officers.)

Amendments made: In page 53, line 6, leave out the word "functions," and insert instead thereof the words, "powers or duties."

In line 15, leave out the word "functions," and insert instead thereof the words "powers or duties."—[Sir H. Young.]

CLAUSE 47.—(Duty of certain councils to prepare schemes.)

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 54, line 20, to leave out the word "made," and to insert instead thereof the words "so prepared and submitted."
During the Committee stage, my right hon. Friend promised to consider a point which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall). He did so,, and found that it was a good point, and it is met by this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 48.—(Transitional provisions.)

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 54, line 36, after the word "Where," to insert the words:
an application for authority to prepare or adopt a scheme has been granted, or.
Under the procedure of the Act of 1909, it was necessary for a local authority to make formal application for authority to prepare a scheme, and the application when approved had the same effect as a resolution. In certain cases such applications are still the basis on which schemes are prepared, and this Amendment keeps that procedure alive.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 54, line 37, leave out the words "been passed," and insert instead thereof the words "taken effect."

In line 38, after the word "that," insert the words "application or."

In line 40, after the word "operation," insert the words:
the application or resolution shall have effect as if it were a resolution passed by the authority and approved by the Minister under this Act, and."—[Sir H. Young.]

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 54. line 42, after the word "question," to insert the words:
and the procedure in connection with the preparation or adoption of schemes, and
the submission of schemes to the Minister, and consideration and approval thereof by him.
This Amendment is rendered necessary by the insertion in Committee of the Fourth Schedule, which deals with procedure. Proceedings based on pre-Bill resolutions will be at all stages of advancement, and, although the procedure laid down is substantially the same as that of the existing regulations, difficulty may be found in dovetailing the new procedure into the old in April next. Subsection (2) of Clause 48, and the proviso thereto will accordingly provide that the old procedure is to remain operative for the purposes of pre-Bill resolutions.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 55, line 8, leave out the words "service of notices," and insert instead thereof the words, "matters aforesaid."—[Sir B. Young.]

CLAUSE 49.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 55, line 11, after the word "Act," insert the words, "unless the context otherwise requires."—[Sir H. Young.]

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I beg to move, in page 55, line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
but does not include hoardings or similar structures to which the Advertisements Regulation Acts, 1907 and 1925, apply or which are used solely for the purpose of poster advertising.
I move this Amendment for the purpose of eliciting information from the Minister. The question of advertisements and advertising was the subject of an agreement in the Committee stage, and I understand that, owing to an oversight, as the Bill at present stands the powers to remove advertisement hoardings apply to advertising stations, that is to say, buildings other than hoardings which are used for advertising purposes. Therefore, if an advertisement were placed on a wall at the end of a house, the correct procedure, as the Bill stands, would be to pull down the whole house. I know that that is not the Minister's intention, and I desire to ascertain from him whether he proposes to insert this Amendment or whether in another place an Amendment to the same effect will be inserted.

Mr. MOREING: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir H.YOUNG: I think there is ground for examination in the suggested criticism as to the possibly illusory nature of the limitation which Clause 42 seeks to impose, and, if my hon. Friend will be so good as to withdraw this Amendment—which I am informed is not in a suitable drafting form in its present state—I will consider the matter with a view to bringing in the necessary Amendment in another place. What appears to be required is some provision that advertisements and hoardings as such are only to be dealt with under the provisions of Clause 42, and my object would be to find a form of words which would make that clear.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 55, line 17, at the end, to insert the words:
 'Classified road' means a road classified by the Minister of Transport under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, in Class 1 or Class 2, or in any class declared by him to be mot inferior to those classes for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1929.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the words "or Class 2."
This definition refers to paragraph (i) of Clause 19, which is one of the paragraphs that give the right to deprive of compensation in specified directions. This particular right of deprivation of compensation is with respect to roads of the nature of a high road, and, during the Committee stage, my right hon. Friend made some concession in this direction. As the Bill was originally drafted, the Minister might deprive of compensation anyone who was precluded from developing an estate by the running of side roads into any highway. He has met us to some extent, but my submission is that he has not met us quite far enough. During the Committee stage, he pointed out that the object, which was a right and proper one, was to keep the large arterial roads as far as possible free from troublesome side entrances, and the Attorney-General went so far as to say that, if one road of entry were allowed in every quarter-mile, that would be suffi-
cient. I submit that one road of entry in every quarter-mile is entirely insufficient, because, when one is developing an estate, the roads are not merely a means of getting people or traffic on to that estate—

Sir H. YOUNG: On a point of Order. I shall be glad of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, simply for my own guidance in reply, as to whether, on this Amendment as to the class of roads to be included in the definition, it would be in order to go into the merits as to the power of control over the number of side roads?

Mr. SPEAKER: That would seem to me to be going beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Captain WATERHOUSE: May I remind you, Sir, that I had an Amendment down to paragraph (i) of Clause 19, and that the Minister then put down an Amendment to strike out Class 1 and Class 2 roads, and to substitute the term "classified roads"? It seems to me that the only way in which I can possibly raise this point, which I believe to be a real point, is on this definition Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member's precedent is not a very sound one, and that he must confine himself entirely to the Amendment.

Captain WATERHOUSE: It is rather hard to confine myself to an Amendment of a definition unless I can give reasons why I think that the definition should be altered. If it is your Ruling that I must confine myself to a definition of classified roads, and may not give any reason why I think the definition should be altered, I must say that I find myself in a position of considerable difficulty, but I do not propose to detain the House for very long if I am allowed to continue. The roads entering these estates are not merely traffic roads, but are used for sewers, water pipes, electric light mains, and gas mains. All these services follow the roads. As the Minister will appreciate, the restriction of the number of roads of entry may quite conceivably mean, not only longer drains, but far deeper drains, if the falls have to be obtained by going a furlong or so north and south before it is possible to go a furlong east or west. I think that the Minister, who, like ourselves, has at
heart the cheapening of development in this country, will also realise that it is not the landlord, or even the speculative builder, who in the upshot will have to bear this extra burden, but that it will have to be borne by the people who buy or rent the houses.
8.0 p.m.
It seems to me that this provision is unnecessary so far as Class 2 roads are concerned. Of course, the classification of roads varies a good deal in different parts of the country. In many parts of the country a Class 2 road does not carry very much of the through traffic, and I think it is true to say that the new large arterial roads which are being built all over the country are never Class 2 roads. It is those roads which the Minister, I understand, seeks to safeguard. I am sure he will see my point, and I hope that he will deal sympathetically with the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and, if we cannot accept it, will make some alteration in the direction that I seek to pursue.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. and gallant Friend will fully apprehend that I mean no disrespect to his argument if I do not deal with the wider aspects of it which relate to whether or not there shall be power in a town planning authority to control the number of side roads into a main road. The argument is well known. We went into it very fully in Committee and dealt with it to some extent on Second Reading. The issue that my hon. and gallant Friend raises now is the narrower issue. Granted that there should be power to control the number of side roads entering a main road, 'and granted that that authority should not be extended to mere by-roads where there can be no necessity to control traffic—and it is freely granted that you must have some limit, and that you need not extend it to all roads—what is the class of roads to which you should apply this power? I have gone into the matter very carefully indeed with expert advisers on road traffic who know more about it than I do, and I am assured that, if you are to make any classification here, the only practical classification you can make is to
include the Class 1 and the Class 2 roads. That might not have been so some years. ago, but it is so to-day because of the growth in importance of Class 2 roads. With the rapid increase of swift traffic, which is, unfortunately, ever seeking out fresh ways of getting into the countryside, Class 2 roads are constantly becoming more and more important until nowadays it is very difficult to find any real differentiation between Class 2 and Class 1 roads. As at present advised, this is the most practical classification for the purpose we have in view.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Captain WATERHOUSE: On a point of Order, Am I to understand that my Amendment is carried?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): No.

Further Amendments made; In page 55, line 26, leave out the word "or."

In line 27, after the word "ground," insert the words "or orchard."

In line 29, leave out the word "these" and insert instead thereof the words "any of those."

In line 41, at the end, insert the words:
 'Fence' and 'hedge' have respectively the same meanings as in the Roads Improvements Act, 1925.

In line 41, at the end, insert the words:
 'Joint committee' means a joint committee appointed under section three or under section four of this Act, or under any repealed enactment relating to town planning.

In page 56, line 2, after the word
right," insert the words "in or."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 56, line 23, to leave out from the second word "scheme," to the end of line 28, and to insert instead thereof the words:
under this Act and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act includes a supplementary scheme and a scheme varying or revoking an existing scheme.
This is a drafting Amendment. Its effect is that supplementary schemes and varying and revoking schemes are treated in the same way as ordinary schemes
except for the purposes of Clauses 6, 7 and 10, in which they are expressly excepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 56, line 35, to leave out from the word "scheme" to the word "such," in line 39 and to insert instead thereof the words:
or a varying scheme the date on which the resolution to prepare or adopt the scheme took effect or.
This is a drafting Amendment consequential partly on the Amendment of Clause 6 made in Committee requiring all Resolutions to be approved by the Minister, and partly on an Amendment made on Friday.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 56, line 43, to leave out the words "a general development order," and to insert instead thereof the words "or a varying scheme."
The omission of "a general development order" is consequential on the Amendment of Clause 15. The insertion of "a varying scheme" is consequential on an Amendment to which I have referred.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 57, line 17, to leave out from the word "date" to the word "and" in line 19.
This is the Amendment of the definition of existing buildings of which I have already forewarned the House. We have in earlier parts of the Bill provided for the extension of "existing buildings" to buildings which were there within the two years preceding the material date, and the words of the Amendment are no longer needed in the Definition Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 50.—(Repeals.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: In page 58, line 35, after the first word "of," to insert the words:
section twenty of this Act with respect to compensation and." — [Brigadier-General Brown]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and
gallant Gentleman the Member for New-bury (Brigadier-General Brown), is consequential on a decision taken on Clause 20.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 58, line 36, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "such" in line 37.
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on an Amendment extending the provisions which under Clause 48 (2) will continue to apply in certain cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 59, line 9, to leave out from the word "notice" to the word "may" in line 11.
The effect of this is to omit from proviso (a) in the first Sub-section the words "shall have effect as if passed made or given under the corresponding provisions of this Act." These words, which were inserted in the original Bill, were appropriate so long as the procedure of the Bill was substantially the same as that of the existing Act. Now we have greatly varied the procedure of the original Bill by Amendments made in Committee, so that the words "under the corresponding provision of this Act" would no longer be capable of easy interpretation. In fact, in many cases they would cease to have any meaning.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I draw attention to line 6? The word "but" which is now left in is not very good English. Should it not be "and"?

Sir H. YOUNG: It certainly seems so at first sight. I will consider it and alter it, if necessary, in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 59, line 13, to leave out the word "accordingly," and to insert instead thereof the words "under this Act."

In page 59, line 25, after the word "not," insert the word "been."—[Mr. E. Brown.']

CLAUSE 51.—(Application to Scotland.)

Mr. CHARLES MILNE: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
We who propose this Amendment are not opposed to town planning. So far as England is concerned, we regard the Bill as a satisfactory, or at any rate a
praiseworthy, endeavour to solve the problem of town planning. But we do not want the Bill to apply to Scotland. We want an independent and a separate Bill expressed in Scottish legal phraseology and one that has been dealt with by the Scottish Standing Committee, This method of legislation by adaptation has evoked a storm of protests, and the local authorities who will have to administer the Bill if it becomes law have passed a resolution condemning this method of legislation. We Scottish Members have received a memorandum from the Association of County Councils, which represents all the county councils in Scotland. They say that in their opinion the Bill should be dropped as regards Scotland and they go on to say:
This method of legislation by adaptation is an unsatisfactory method of legislation for Scotland. It does not give adequate opportunity for consideration of the provisions of the Bill as applied to Scotland, and it involves risks of administrative difficulties and possibly litigation.
The Convention of Royal Burghs is a body which includes the whole of the burghs in Scotland large and small. At their annual meeting at Edinburgh last May they passed a resolution directing a committee to maintain a continuous endeavour to have Scottish legislation supervised by Scottish Members of Parliament. Most recently of all, we Scottish Members have had a communication from the Scottish Law Agents' Society. That is to say, the Scottish solicitors. It is almost a cry of despair. Their opinion is entitled to have weight, because they will in large measure have to interpret and administer the Bill if it becomes law. They say:
The Bill will be considered by Parliament primarily, if not entirely, from the point of view of English law and will be debated as an English Measure and will not receive consideration from the point of view of Scots law and Scottish conditions, nor will it come before the Scottish Grand Committee.
They conclude by saying:
This method of legislation is both prejudicial and disrespectful to Scotland. It is treated as a mere appendage of England.
No Town Planning Bill can ever be a satisfactory Measure unless it has been dealt with by the Scottish Committee. Our system of land tenure, methods of conveyancing, and institutions of local government are entirely different from those of England. I, no doubt in common
with other Scottish Members, looked up the OFFICIAL REPOET because I was anxious to discover the composition of the Committee which set out to fashion and to mould the law of Scotland, and effect our town planning for us. I do not for a moment intend to criticise those who were responsible for selecting the Committee. I do not intend any reflection upon them. We complain that the Bill ought never to have been sent to an ordinary Standing Committee but straight to the Scottish Committee. I found that the Standing Committee consists of 66 Members, including the Chairman, five of whom are Scottish. Members and 61 are English Members. I suppose that the proportion of five Scotsmen to 61 Englishmen is that to which we are entitled on a basis of population. That is not our complaint. It is that it ought not to have been sent to such a Committee, but should have been dealt with by the Scottish Committee.
Town planning presents problems of very great complexity, and raises questions sometimes of very considerable legal difficulty, so I looked with anxiety to see whether Scottish lawyers were sufficiently represented on the Committee. I speak with entire freedom although I belong to that maligned class, because I am no conveyancer and no contribution from me would have been of the slightest value. But there are others. I found that there were two legal Members on the Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Solicitor-General for Scotland. Everybody who knows them has complete confidence in their competence and fair-mindedness. We are completely assured as to that, but what deprived their presence on the Committee of most of its value was that there was no contradicter. After all, criticism from competent sources, from other lawyers is not necessarily hostile but useful and sometimes essential.
If our complaint was merely a complaint of that sort, I could well understand the House becoming impatient. The House might well say that this is another lawyers' squabble, but the matter does not end there. So far I have used language of studied moderation, and I shall continue to exercise the same restraint. But when I tell the House of the next discovery I can only say that I was amazed. The Town
and Country Planning Bill raises the question of the jurisdiction of competing local authorities, and the main question, perhaps the only question as affecting Scotland, is the controversy which has arisen between the county councils on the one hand and the small burghs on the other. "Small burgh" is a technical term. It means a burgh with a population under 20,000. The controversy is still raging. I went to the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT to try to learn the arguments presented by the county councils on the one hand and the case advanced by the small burghs on the other. I found that there was not a single representative of the Scottish county councils upon the Committee, and that there was not a Member representing the small burghs. The Standing Committee contained five Scottish Members, one of whom is a representative of the Scottish Universities, and the other four Members divide between them the representation of the great cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. Is it to be wondered at that the proposal to adapt the Bill to Scotland has been received with profound dissatisfaction in Scotland, and that the county councils refuse to recognise this illegitimate offspring?
I have been reasonable in this matter. At least we hope that it may be possible for the Secretary of State for Scotland to give an explanation, and an assurance for the future. We understand the difficulties with which the Government are faced and realise the tremendous pressure under which Parliamentary business has to be conducted at present. We realise the difficulty in finding time for the most essential legislation, but we remember that only recently the time of the House was occupied with a Cinema Bill which concerns London and the South of England alone, while only last week we were informed that the time of the House was to be mortgaged in part for the London Transport Bill. We do not grudge London and the South of England these amenities, but we should welcome an equal solicitude for Scotland. May I make a very respectful suggestion to the Secretary of State for Scotland? Parliament assembled last October. The Scottish Standing Committee has sat for only five days, or, to be quite accurate, for
four mornings and part of a fifth. We Scottish Members often, with not enough to occupy our time, can only twiddle our thumbs, and I suggest that the remedy lies at hand. Set in motion the existing machinery of the Scottish Committee once again. There are Committee rooms upstairs standing unused and empty, and here is a grand opportunity to find jobs for the unemployed. Unlock the door and let us get on with our work.

Mr. JAMES REID: I beg to second the Amendment, from a slightly different point of view, perhaps, than that of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne). I do not think the hon. Member meant, and I certainly do not mean, to suggest that every Measure that affects Scotland should be in the form of a separate Bill. Very far from it. There are many Measures in regard to which it would not only be no advantage to have a separate Bill for Scotland but it would be a great disadvantage, because it is essential that the law in the two countries should be kept in accord. There are Measures where there is, let us say, a marginal case and strong arguments either way. But there is a particular class of Measure, particularly a Measure which deals, as this does, with local conditions, in which the arguments are all in favour of having separate legislation for the two countries. At one time, I think, Scotland had a very real cause of complaint in that this House, if I may say so without disrespect, did neglect the interests of that country; but of recent years I think we have noticed a tendency towards much greater consideration of Scottish problems. However, the fact that Scotland has been tacked on to England in this Bill has undoubtedly caused some apprehensions, and I think legitimate apprehensions, that that tendency towards giving greater consideration to Scottish problems has for the moment been reversed. I trust that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to assure us that that is not the policy of the Government for the future.
There is one novel feature about this Bill that deserves passing comment. In the past when Scotland has been included along with England in one Bill we have simply had a Section which applied the Scottish terms of art and the Scottish procedure to the English part of
the Bill. In this Bill there is a proposal that separate Acts should be printed for Scotland and for England. Speaking for myself, if it is necessary to have only one Bill for the two countries I rather welcome that as a concession towards convenience in Scotland, but it does, I think, carry a certain state of danger latent in the method, because in the present Bill, for instance, it will be very difficult, looking at the extensive alterations that have taken place in the Report stage, to assure ourselves that this Bill leaves the House with the appropriate alterations made in the Scottish section. Further than that, I think the fact that in order to make the Bill intelligible in Scotland a separate Act is to be printed is at least a strong consideration which should be borne in mind when the Government are deciding whether or not it shall have one or two Bills.
I realise, like the hon. Member for West Fife, that this is a time of crisis and that it would be unreasonable to ask for things to-day for which one would be entitled to ask in normal times. One realises that questions which are not of immediate national importance in the sense that financial questions are at the moment cannot receive the same full and adequate consideration that they otherwise would, and the people of Scotland may have to suffer along with other people for the time being, in view of the national crisis. But if we cannot have a separate Bill on this occasion I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that this will not be regarded as a precedent for the future and that there is no intention to reverse the tendency to which I have referred, namely, that Scotland was getting more and more separate treatment in this House as time went on. On the contrary, I hope that in future when legislation is being considered each case will receive the fullest consideration on its own merits and that the ruling consideration will be not a question of convenience but what is in the best interests of Scotland, as to whether Scotland shall or shall not have a separate Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Earl of DALKEITH: Before the Clause is passed I should like to ask the Government for an assurance on one or two points. I understand that there is a certain amount of anxiety that this Bill will
lead to a dangerous increase of staff in the Government Departments in Scotland. Industry is at the moment groaning under taxation and to a large extent that taxation is to pay for the staffs of various Government Departments. There appear to be a number of points in the Ball which are likely to lead to the necessity for supervision from Edinburgh, and I would ask the Secretary of State if he. can give us an assurance that there is. not likely to be any increase of staff in consequence of this Bill and that his Department will use the utmost effort to avoid such an increase during this time when economy is so essential. The town councils of the small burghs have felt anxiety in regard to the alterations and the way in which they will affect their powers, and I would like to ask if the Government have gone as far as they possibly can in the best way possible to meet the points that have been put before them.

Mr. BURNETT: I listened with interest to the appeals put forward that the smaller burghs and counties in Scotland should be excluded from the Bill. I speak as one who has served on the council of one of the larger burghs, and that council feels very strongly on this subject. It feels that in the interests of Scotland, Scotland ought to be included in the Town Planning Bill. I say this on behalf of a burgh which perhaps stands to lose more than most, because we already have our private Act, which gives us wider powers than this Bill will give. Proceeding under the Town Planning (Scotland) Act, 1925, we obtained our private Act, which gave us powers considerably wider than are given by this Bill over all the land within our area, powers whether the land was developed, undeveloped or ripe for development. Those powers were got by a private Bill which was approved by this House.
Acting on that legislation we have gone forward with our scheme, feeling that the long-range scheme and the wide area is the thing which is required. We sot into consultation with the district committees of the County Councils of Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire and as a joint committee we have been working at the scheme. We have got into touch with the landed interests round
about and have come to an agreement with most of them, and we hoped that before long our scheme would come into effect. We have tried in the areas round about to plan, to zone and to see that traffic communications with the city are made in the undeveloped land, and that in the built-over area in the city the streets are planned out to correspond. All this work that we have put in, or a good deal of it, we realise is likely to be lost, but my council feel strongly that, in the interests of Scotland generally, it is of the utmost importance that town planning powers should be extended. My council has considered this matter very carefully and feels that it should give its approval to the Bill, although it does not go as far as it would like in certain particulars. In regard to Clause 6, it considers that further powers should be given. Possibly this may be done at a later stage of the Bill, but in the meantime we consider that we ought to accept the Bill as it stands, or as it may be amended, as a valuable contribution towards the very important principle of town planning.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): In replying to the case put forward by the Amendment, which I hope will be withdrawn, I should like to congratulate the mover on his admirable maiden speech, and also congratulate the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. J. Reid) for the way in which he seconded the Amendment. Both these hon. Members are brothers and friends of mine at the Scottish Bar, and although I feel a slight hesitation in congratulating the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne), I am sure that the House would not wish me to pass a most clear, admirable and vigorous maiden speech without a few words of praise.
My hon. Friends have urged that the Bill should not be applied to Scotland. In the first place, may I say that in all their speeches there has been a singular absence of any criticism of the detailed provisions of the Measure, and that follows precisely the course of events in Committee. It is true that there were only two Scottish private Members on the Committee, but one of them, the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) was an
extremely active and valuable Member. He did not find it necessary to put his part in the Committee in what I may call a Scottish setting. The views he held in regard to the improvement of the Bill he found it easy to expound in the English Clauses, and it shows that there is not that profound difference between Scotland and England in regard to town planning which some hon. Members would lead us to suppose.
If there was a difference between the two countries which could not be overcome by a necessary alteration in the legal phraseology, then I agree that it would be absolutely essential to have a separate Bill for Scotland, but the. hon. Member for Cathcart found it unnecessary to make any Amendments with regard to Scotland specifically except one, that Scotland should be omitted. The same thing is true when you come to the Report stage. With the exception of this Amendment and certain drafting Amendments which the Government have put down, there are no Amendments dealing with Scotland at all, and although on Report every Scottish Member has an opportunity of putting down any Amendment for consideration which he thinks necessary to improve the application of the Bill to Scotland, they have not found it necessary. It has not been found necessary because the Bill, as it will leave the House after the insertion of our Amendments, is in my judgment as applicable to Scotland as it is to England. Indeed, if one contrasts the vast number of Amendments moved by English Members in Committee and on Report with the very small number of Amendments moved by Scottish Members, one would rather suppose that what was needed was that England should be omitted from the Bill rather than Scotland.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Hear, hear.

Mr. SKELTON: That is a suggestion which meets with a ready response from a well-known quarter. Let me say one word upon the position of the small burghs. That is indeed a purely Scottish question, and one which needed adjustment. It is true that the question was not raised by the small burghs on the Second Reading or Committee stage of a similar Bill in the last Parliament, but it was raised after this Bill was read a
Second time, and we felt that it was necessary to meet the question. Let me state the problem in a sentence or two. The House will recollect that in 1929 Acts were passed reorganising local government in England and in Scotland. The Scottish Act handed over many of the powers of the smaller burghs to the county councils, reinforced by representatives of the small burghs. Among the powers which were specifically left to the small burghs was that of housing. Town planning in those days was confined to undeveloped areas. Town planning was removed in 1929 from the small burghs. This Bill extends town planning to built-up areas and, therefore, it brings the question of town planning much more closely home to the small burghs. We felt that to leave the small burghs with housing powers over their own built-up areas and give them no town planning powers over the same areas was to invite confusion and dissipation of effort.
After the Second Reading of the Bill, negotiations were opened with the representatives of the small burghs, the Convention of Royal Burghs, as to what powers should be given them in the matter of town planning. I do not say that every small burgh or every town councillor of every small burgh is satisfied with the solution, but I do say that the Convention of Royal Burghs has expressed in general terms its approval, and in answer to the Noble Lord it seems to the Government the correct solution, from which they do not propose to move. In the first place, the solution is on these lines, that where a small burgh thinks it would be advisable to have general town planning powers of its own it may apply to the Department of Health. The Department of Health may or may not give those powers. Some of these small burghs have populations just short of 20,000, and others have populations of not more than a few hundreds. The House will appreciate that it is necessary that the Department of Health should have a final word as to whether or not a small burgh should become a town-planning authority. It would not be wise or economical or in the interests of the small burgh of a few hundred inhabitants that it should become a town-planning authority, clad with all the panoply of power which this Bill gives. Similarly
where in a general county scheme a built-up area of a small burgh will be affected by the scheme, the small burgh has a word to say on the subject. That is a really sound solution of the problem.
These provisions were inserted in Committee on my Motion, and there has not been, on Report, any Amendments to this solution put down by any Scottish Member. Although there may be still some mutterings of the storm, because every one cannot see alike, the solution which we propose has on the whole commended itself by its reasonableness and common sense to the small burghs and counties of Scotland. In practice I am satisfied that it will work. If this Amendment were accepted and if Scotland were omitted from the Bill, we would be doing not a good day's work but a bad day's work for Scotland. In the first place the Bill provides much more carefully than does existing legislation for the compensation of the private citizen who is affected by town planning. I deprecate very much the idea that the private citizen in Scotland should have his interests in regard to compensation, even for a year, less carefully guarded than are those of his opposite number in England. Therefore I hold that the Bill's provisions should be applied to Scotland forthwith and that England should not be left in a favoured position.
Secondly, the Bill applies to built-up areas as opposed to undeveloped areas. I cannot reconcile myself to the view that Scotland is less interested than England in the proper planning of built-up areas or that there is any reason to suppose that we should be neglectful of the interests of Scottish towns while the interests of English towns are regarded. Speaking as a citizen of the capital of Scotland, Edinburgh is a city full of interesting historical houses, in spite of the deprivations of past generations, yet those houses are in the middle of slum or poor areas. It would be difficult to find in the whole length and breadth of England a city which seemed to call more urgently for the application of town planning. The same thing is true when you come to small burghs like Stirling and St. Andrews. Enormous damage has been done in the past by the ruthless destruction of historical buildings in Scotland, and he would be a rash man who said that this Bill is less needed in Scotland than in England.
My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment seemed to desire that only in exceptional circumstances should legislation be common to the two countries. The seconder of the Amendment analysed that point rather more carefully, and divided it into three—one case where the two countries should go step by step in a common Bill; the marginal case where the needs of each country should be dealt with on their merits; and the third case where the conditions in the two countries were so different that separate legislation was urgently necessary. There is nothing in the condition of the two countries which makes it essential to have different town-planning Bills. To the Mover of the Amendment I would say that every Secretary of State for Scotland desires that where there is any advantage at all in the procedure a separate Bill for Scotland should be presented to the House. Even where you have some real advantage in a separate Bill, you have always to consider whether you run the risk of postponing necessary legislation for Scotland; you have to consider the balance of advantage. Every one is aware that at the end of the Session there is a long list of Bills which are sacrificed. They are not exclusively Scottish Bill. In the old days it used to be called "the massacre of the innocents." So skilfully has the National Government applied the time at its disposal this Session that I do not believe there will be any noticeable massacre of the innocents.

Sir S. CRIPPS: They were never born.

Mr. SKELTON: Those that were born are doing very well. It must be recognised that within the limits of Parliamentary time one cannot always be sure of passing in a given Session a particular Bill for Scotland. My hon. Friend rather suggested that in the matter of separate Bills Scotland was being ill-treated as compared with England. I think he forgets that it is not only for Scotland that there are separate Bills but that there are also separate Bills for England as well as Bills common to both countries. But with regard to separate Bills, how do the two countries stand this Session? There have been or will be five Bills this Session which are exclusively for England. At the same time there will be three Bills exclusively for Scotland—not
a bad proportion. Of those Scottish Bills one deals with Educational Endowments; a second is the Scottish Universities Bill, which deals with the organisation of theological training, and the third, the Hire Purchase Bill, deals with a matter of practical importance in the life of the working people of Scotland and carries out a reform of the law which was urgently recommended by a powerful committee. In a Session so largely taken up with Bills of vast importance common to both countries, that proportion of separate Bills for Scotland shows that the Secretary of State and myself have not been so unfortunate after all in our efforts to-secure a due proportion of separate Scottish legislation. Indeed it is only because my right hon. Friend and I are men of the most modest type that we do not take even greater credit to ourselves.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. TRAIN: I do not wish to seem ungrateful for the many Amendments which were down in my name and were given effect to in Committee, but, as the Under-Secretary of State has said that the Scottish question was not raised by any Scottish Member in Committee, may I point out that in the OFFICIAL REPORT [(Standing Committee A), 10th May, 1932, col. 919] he will find that he himself, in moving an Amendment, said that it dealt with a matter which had been raised by me, in reference to the Schedule as applying to Scotland. Further down, he will find reference to another matter which I raised affecting Scotland and in connection with which, I may say, I was told by the learned Attorney-General that I was entirely wrong, but some of the town clerks of Scotland put us right on that point of Scottish law. I made my protest vigorously in the Committee on this question, and I do not wish to repeat my arguments, but there never was a subject upon which it was more necessary that Scotland should have a separate Bill than town planning. The County Councils Association of Scotland, no mean body, which represents all the councils in Scotland and is the biggest local government bodies association in Scotland, has expressed its opinion upon this Bill and the council of the county of Lanark on which I served for some years has told us that they do not want the Bill. As regards Glasgow, the second city of the Empire, I have been told that its town planning will be completed under
the 1925 Act before this Bill can get on to the Statute Book. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) has told us that Aberdeen is going on finely with its town planning. Why then is this Bill necessary? The local authorities are doing all they want to do under the 1925 Act.
The local authorities in Scotland to-day are suffering from too much legislation. The county councils have taken over the work of the parish councils and the education authorities under the 1929 Act. At the moment they are suffering from legislative indigestion, but now they are to be forbibly fed with this Measure. They do not want it, but it is being thrust upon them. The Under-Secretary referred to the case of the small burghs. They had power under the Town Planning Act from 1925 until 1929 and not one of them put up a scheme. They lost their power, certainly, under the 1929 Act and now they have asked to be included in this Measure as town planning authorities. Some of them, the Under-Secretary told us in Committee, could not raise £60 a year with a rate of a penny in the pound, yet they want to be town planning authorities in urban areas where they may have to pull down buildings worth possibly £10,000 for which compensation will be payable. But my hon. Friend explains that he has arranged the matter in such a way that they will not be responsible for the compensation which will be spread over the county. There is a fine piece of legislation. You give them authority to carry out town planning, but the financial responsibility is to be spread over the county.
In Committee I missed the help of many of my hon. Friends from Scotland who are able lawyers but I did my best to put forward Amendments of a practical character. I could not, however, argue these matters from the legal standpoint. I have no fault to find with those who selected the Committee but from the Scottish point of view it would have been better if we had had on that Committee one or two Scottish Members who have a good knowledge of conveyancing. Our Scottish system differs entirely from the English system. Our legal terminology is different. Our local government is different and it would be better for Scotland if both housing and town planning enact-
ments were kept separate from those of England. Even our system of constructing houses in Scotland is different from the English system and this Bill deals with the construction of houses and the materials used in the construction of houses. A house which can be built in Glasgow for £250 or £275 would cost £500 in Inverness simply because the materials are not available in Inverness which can be obtained in Glasgow. There is no brick-making so far north and the transport increases the cost. We had evidence in the Committee on Rural Housing of the effect upon costs of applying the English system to Scottish housing. If these people in Inverness and the North could have built their houses of the materials to hand, they would have been very much cheaper than building them on the English system.
What has been the result in Scotland of housing coming under the scheme that was brought about after the great Lloyd George Act of 1909, when town planning was first mooted and Form IV was brought out? We have the same thing under this Bill with regard to betterment as we had under the 1909 Act, which stopped all private enterprise in Scotland from building houses to let, because there was nothing left in it for the builder or the man who was making his living at it. We find that in 1917 a commission was set up to tell us all about housing, and the local authorities began in 1919 under the Addison scheme, and to-day what is it costing the country to house the people under those Acts in Scotland. Over £2,000,000 a year from the Treasury, to say nothing of the local rates in some instances being over Is. in the £ for housing. Ten years ago there was not a penny of that, because private enterprise could find it all. We were able, by feuing land and plotting it out, to give good trustee security from those feus or ground rents, as they are called here, and—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is attempting to deliver the speech which he was not allowed to deliver in Committee.

Mr. TRAIN: It may be that my enthusiasm was running away with me. I apologise, and I will come back to earth. Maybe I can get in a speech on the Third Reading. While I am not ungrateful for the various Amendments that have been given effect to, the Bill is not the Bill
that it was originally. It has been amended, and a lot of time and care have been spent upon it in Committee, but I would like to have some assurance from my hon. Friend or from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I prophesy that we shall have a Bill very shortly for Scotland as well as one for England. We shall not be satisfied with this Bill. We shall never have proper town and country planning until we divide the country by watersheds, and -when that comes along we shall get a separate Bill for Scotland.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: As a mere Sassenach, I would not have ventured to intervene in this dispute among giants if it had not been for a few remarks which fell from the lips of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He made an eloquent appeal with regard to the preservation of old buildings in Scottish burghs. I congratulate him on his optimism, if he really thinks, as he would lead us to believe, that he is going to preserve them by this Bill, that is to say, by extending very vastly the powers of those who were responsible for pulling down the Town House in Dundee. If that is the way in which he hopes to preserve the ancient buildings in these Scottish burghs, he is an even greater idealist and visionary than I have always believed him to be.

Dr. WILLIAM McLEAN: I rise to oppose the Amendment to exclude Scotland from the benefits of this Bill. The existing powers in Scotland are merely to plan suburban areas. It has been found in nearly all countries of the world, and my own practical experience confirms it, that it is necessary to plan the built-up area along with the suburban area, to have a complete scheme for a town as a whole, and that nothing less can give a satisfactory result. This Bill will enable us to do that. It has been said that there is no urgency for this Bill in Scotland. Well, there are several reasons for immediate application, but to my mind the most important is the economic reason. This Bill enables us to do what is called regional planning. A regional plan is based upon an economic industrial survey. It shows the development of an area, it shows the communications,
the sites for light and heavy industries, the power and water supplies and the drainage, and it also shows the areas available for residential purposes.
In England, during the past 10 or 12 years, nearly one-third of the whole area of the country has been so planned, and it covers many, if not most, of the industrial counties. This has been done entirely voluntarily, by groups of local authorities, and the reports accompanying these schemes indicate the advantages of the areas for new industries. In Scotland, practically nothing has been done on these lines. There is a Clyde Valley scheme, but that is merely the suggested lay-out of main roads. It is not a regional plan on the lines that I have indicated. The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) referred to Glasgow, which has shown considerable courage in planning, under inadequate legislation; but it is by no means a complete town planning scheme, as understood in the world to-day, although the hon. Member for Cathcart rather imagines that it is. It is a scheme more or less for the unbuilt areas, and a certain amount of planning in the built areas, but it is by no means a complete town planning scheme for the city such as other large cities in the world possess to-day.
Although these regional plans in England have no statutory authority, they have, I submit, a strong psychological bearing. They provide all the information required by manufacturers looking out for sites for new industries. I do not assume for a moment that they have a determining influence, but they have probably a very strong influence in deciding where manufacturers will eventually put their works. It is very interesting to note that new industries in England since the War have mainly gone to those areas which have been so planned. I admit that there may be a strong economic pull, but the existence of these plans taken on a balance of consideration, along with economic reasons, may have influenced many manufacturers to go to those areas in the South and in the Midlands rather than to the North, where no plans exist. Under this Bill this regional planning will now be possible. In Scotland the plans will be statutory instead of being merely volun-
tary, and therefore will be much more valuable; and I submit that this work in Scotland, coupled with the work of the Development Councils recently formed, may play a very strong part in inducing new industries to come to Scotland, without which we can have no prosperity. I therefore hope the Amendment will be rejected.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: I support the Amendment because I want to join in the protests of my Scottish colleagues with regard to the operation of this Clause. I do so principally upon the ground that it is another attempt, which, is made far too frequently, to legislate for Scotland by reference. This Clause cancels out the Town Planning Act of Scotland of 1925. We have before us now a very contentious Measure, the complexity of which can be realised when we remember how many Amendments have been made by the Minister and by other Members. There is the strongest possible resentment in Scotland at this method of legislation. In Scotland, we have an entirely different judicial system from that in England, and a land system which is entirely different from the English land system, and yet the House is asking that this contentious Measure should be administered in Scotland by a system of reference. We have had many complaints in past years on the operation of this system, and, so far as I am aware, there is not a local authority or a county council in Scotland but takes strong exception to that method of legislation.
It is our view that a town planning scheme for Scotland should be drafted along the lines of Scottish requirements and not served up in this particular manner, which is bound ultimately to result in litigation and confusion of all kinds. I am aware that there is a scheme of interpretation Clauses which may apply in. certain directions, but, generally speaking, the interpretation and administration of this Bill is to be directed from the official Scottish Department. I have nothing to say against these Departments, but, if opinion in Scotland is of any value,, the result of the passing of the Bill is viewed with considerable apprehension. In the local authorities and county councils of Scotland are men who are spending their leisure time in trying to administer the existing Acts in the interest of public affairs, and their efforts will be very
largely discounted by the adaptation of this Measure to Scottish needs. While we have no chance of forcing this Amendment through, I urge that the protests which have been made by my colleagues and reinforced by what I have been able to say shall have the urgent attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, after all, is the principal custodian of this House for Scottish interests.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate when I came to the House, but I feel that I should like to say a word in support of the argument which has been adduced by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean). There is no doubt that in Scotland we are having a great fight to retain industries, and in fact to attract fresh industries. It will be a great mistake from the Scottish point of view if we allow our friends south of the Border to steal a march on us by having a Measure of town planning, such as is proposed, which will result in the better planning of their towns, and will thereby act as a still greater magnet to industry. We Scottish Members, therefore, should not oppose the passage of this Bill, because it will result in substantial benefits to Scotland. There can be no doubt that some of our Scottish cities are just as much in need of town planning as are English cities. I might go further and say that some are even in more need of town planning, but with the Scottish national genius we shall perhaps be able to make better use of this Bill than the English people. I will not follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace) on the merits of this particular system of legislation—I do not wish to express any opinion about that—but I hope that the Scottish Members will not force this Amendment to a Division and give- the English people a chance of depriving us of some of the benefits that they will get from this Bill, which, whatever its defects, will I believe prove very beneficial to our country.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOT-LAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): The speeches to which we have listened from the Scottish standpoint have fallen into two categories. There have been criticisms of the Bill on its merits, and protests by some of my hon. Friends against the method which has been
adopted of adapting the Bill to the necessities of Scotland. The Noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith) felt some anxiety whether the Bill would not result in a certain increase of expenditure and staff at the headquarters of the Department of Health. That is an aspect of the Measure which we have carefully considered, and we believe that there will be hardly any, if any, increase of staff at all at the headquarters. I am glad to give that assurance, and I am grateful to the Noble Lord for raising the point, because I know that these anxieties have been felt by a number of people. We have been told that there are some people who do not want this Bill. I have read very carefully the memorandum of the Association of County Councils which has been quoted, and all the hostile representations which have reached me on the subject. There have been very few, but such as have reached me I have read. The majority, including that of the Association of County Councils, have been based, in part, at any rate, upon misapprehensions of what is in the Bill—misapprehensions which, I think, must have been allayed as the result of the Debates which have taken place on the successive stages of the Measure.
As against these criticisms of the Bill which I think are ill-founded, we have received a large body of support for the Bill. May I say how gratefully we welcome the speeches of the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) and of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean) whose work as a practical but imaginative town planner is known in three Continents. We welcome, in particular, the support which he has brought to the Bill on the most practical ground that it is a weapon which we are placing in the hands of municipalities and enlightened Scottish industrialists which will actually add to the strength of and expand the facilities for industry in our great cities. We have had, too, the support of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett). Aberdeen has set an example of altruistic and patriotic support of this Measure which is the most remarkable testimony that it has received from any single place. Aberdeen is a city of very remarkable and austere beauty, and it possesses a municipality
which has set an example to Scotland in its progressive enthusiasm for town planning under the separate Act which it possesses and under which it has proceeded in close co-operation with the county of Aberdeen. Nevertheless, Aberdeen wishes Scotland to have the benefit of this Measure and looks forward to it as a useful addition to the Statute Book. On the other hand, I have no information to corroborate the information of the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) about the position in Glasgow. I can hardly believe that that great city will really have completed the whole of its town planning before this Measure gets on to the Statute Book.
Further, we have received important support for this Measure from the Town Planning Institute of Scotland on which there are a large number of people who know most about the subject in Scotland and who are keenest about it. We have also had strong support from the Housing and Town Planning Association, of Scotland which comprises representatives of every local authority. The hon. Member for Cathcart, who possesses a knowledge of practical building problems which is almost unique in this House, put a number of very practical questions and said that questions as to the materials which were suitable for building in Scotland and the methods to be employed were peculiarly Scottish problems which demanded specifically Scottish solutions. Those are the solutions which these problems will receive at the hands of the Scottish town-planning authorities under the terms of this Bill. Therefore, I suggest that on merits the case for the application of this Bill to Scotland is definitely made out, and more than that, that there is a demand from those who are most zealous in the cause of town planning in Scotland that Scotland should not be deprived of me advantages of this Measure.
9.30 p.m.
I should like to say a few words in reply to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, not that there is much for me to say after the speech of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Skelton) who covered the ground so very completely. The hon. Member for Cathcart complained, as other Members have done, I will not say that the Committee was badly constituted, but that
it was unfortunate that Scotland did not enjoy a greater measure of representation upon it. We all know that when a group of Members, a geographical group, or a group interested in a particular subject, want to obtain representation upon a Committee, there, are means and methods in this House of conveying to the Selection Committee which appoints the Committee, the fact that they want representation. I have not the slightest doubt that if they had adopted those methods the Scottish Members would not have found any difficulty at all in getting a larger share of representation. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) said I ought to have regard to the protests against this Bill which had been expressed in certain quarters. Not only have I had regard to those protests but I have out down Amendments to meet them. Those Amendments, which are contained in Schedule 6, represent a very honest and sincere effort to meet the criticisms, and so satisfactory do they appear to have been that they have not been challenged at any stage.
Therefore, I do hope my hon. Friends will see their way to withdraw this Amendment. I can assure them that I fully realise the desirability of having a Scottish Bill where it is possible, but, as has been pointed out, there are occasions when it is desirable to include Scottish interests in a common Measure. We have to consider in each case where the balance of advantage lies, and where we have a Measure in regard to which there is such a real and genuine desire on the part of those who know the problem best in Scotland, and where we think there is likely to be on the side of the Bill in Scotland, not merely opinion from the point of view of preserving amenities—though I am not ashamed to say that that is a point of view which appeals very much to me—but from the most practical point of view, not only of the future development of the civic life of Scotland but the practical point of view which is occupying all our minds at present, namely, the industrial development of Scotland—where we have a Bill which presents such advantages as this Bill does to the life of Scotland, then I hope my hon. Friends will feel it would have been wrong to have risked the possibility that we might lose the Bill this Session,
and that they will join with us in facilitating its passage.

Mr. MILNE: In view of what has fallen from the Secretary of State, and with the approval of the House and the consent of my Seconder, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 52.—(Short title, commencement, and extent.)

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in page 60, line 15, to leave out the word "thirty-three," and to insert instead thereof the words:
thirty-six, or such other date as may be fixed by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
It is proposed that the Bill shall come into operation on 1st April next, and the object of my Amendment is to defer its coming into operation until 1st April, 1936, or such other date as may be fixed by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I invite every Member except those who are fanatical town planners to support me in this Amendment, on the sole ground of economy, because this is the very last time at which we ought to harass ratepayers, put an expenditure on every occupier of houses or land and introduce a system which can only bring about a big accession of work to lawyers. Under Clause 47 every local authority in a district with 20,000 inhabitants is required to bring in and pass within the next two years a scheme under this Bill. I am not aware of the number of such local authorities in England and Scotland, but I should say at a rough guess there would be about 1,000 or 1,500, and I ask the House to consider the labour and expense in which they will be involved in the preparation and passing of these schemes. The Minister has told us that he does not expect that there will be a great increase of expenditure in his Department. I do not know on what he bases that opinion. Though I have not counted the number of times his name is mentioned in the Bill, yet every matter in dispute—and they will be innumerable—is to be referred to him for decision; numbers of local inquiries have to be held; and I cannot but think there will have to be a big accession of strength to his Department, and that it will cause a great increase of expenditure. When I consider the work entailed on local autho-
rities, and the expenditure to which every occupier of land or houses will be put to ascertain his rights under a Bill which is absolutely unintelligible even to the most skilled lawyers, I shudder to think of the irritation and hardship which will be created, and this at a time when the country is crying out for economy. Only the other night we saw hon. Members, on a question of saving a mere bagatelle of £200,000, led away into voting against their own Government in the interests of what they professed was economy.
The trouble which I have experienced in great measure in connection with this Bill, both in Committee and in the House, is that very few hon. Members know what it contains. The propaganda in its favour has been extraordinarily well done. It has been represented outside, because I hear it all over my own division, that this is a Bill to prevent the dotting of the countryside with little bungalows with red roofs, and to prevent ribbon development along the main roads out of cur big towns. If those had been its only two objects the Bill would have met with universal approval, but, as a matter of fact, not one in 100 persons has the slightest idea of the terms of this Measure. I would point out that if my Amendment were accepted the 1925 Act would still remain in operation, and under that Act there are still ample powers to town plan the whole of the undeveloped areas in the country. What the insatiable fanatics who are urging the passing of this Measure insist upon is that the whole of the built-up areas should also become subject to town planning, as they do under the terms of this Bill
What are the first matters which strike those who do know what will happen when a town planning scheme is suggested in a locality? There is a prospect of every occupier and every owner being subjected to a betterment tax. The local authorities will have to get some of their expenditure back, and a tax is to be put on owners and occupiers—or is likely to be. That will happen in our biggest cities—London and all our other big towns, with all the valuable buildings they contain. Next we have to consider the powers which are given under the Bill. I am not going to trouble the House with too long a recital of them, but the,
misfortune, as I say again, is that I dare venture to assert that there are 400 Members of this House who have never read this Bill at all. They come in from the Smoking Boom and from outside, and, without having heard a word of the discussion and without even having read the Bill, and not knowing what has been happening, they give their votes in Divisions. Although the Minister smiles I challenge him to deny that. The main work to be done under the Bill is laid down in Clauses 11 and 12. One Sub-section of Clause 11 says a scheme
shall contain, such provisions as are necessary or expedient for prohibiting or regulating the development of land in the area to which the scheme applies.
It can stop building, it can stop development, or it can regulate building or regulate development. It goes on—
and in particular for dealing with any of the matters mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act.
When we look at the Second Schedule we find that it deals with every form of use to which land, buildings, or woods can be put. Paragraph 1 deals with streets, roads and other ways: 2 deals with buildings, structures and erections; 3 deals with open spaces, private and public; 4 deals with the reservation of land as sites for aerodromes; 5 deals with preservation of trees and woodlands; 6 deals with prohibition, regulation and control of the deposit of waste material and refuse; 7 deals with sewerage, drainage, sewage disposal; 8 deals with lighting; 9 deals with water supply; 10 deals with ancillary or consequential works. I am not going to read them all. There is the disposal of land to the responsible authority; power of entry and inspection; extension or variation of rights of way and other easements. Then under Clause 12, so far as buildings are concerned, there is a provision prescribing a space about buildings, limiting the number of buildings, regulating or enabling the responsible authority to regulate the size, height, design and elevation of buildings, and the materials to be used in their construction. Then it proceeds to impose restrictions upon the manner in which buildings may be used including, in the case of dwelling-houses, the letting thereof in separate tenements. There are other matters to which I will not refer. I think that I am right in what
I have put before the House. The Clause deals not only with buildings to be erected, but with built-up areas as they are now, and it regulates the use of existing buildings. You can go down to the City of London and find that it regulates the streets in the City in such a way that industries there can no longer be carried on.
Everybody, occupier, trader, ratepayer, owner are going to be troubled in this way to see what they have to do. No sooner does a town planning scheme start, and a voice is heard that a resolution is to be passed, than every single person concerned has to consult his solicitor to see how he stands under this Bill. I defy anybody in this House, except one who has followed the whole Measure through the Committee stage, to understand what the rights of any individual are under the Bill. Therefore, for the safety o:: his own position and to avoid the risk of this tax on betterment which may run the owner into an enormous sum, to avoid the risk of being turned out from the use and occupation of property which he has held for years, he has to decide whether his land is to be described as an open space and kept as an open space, or as agricultural land, or is to be allotted for trade or other buildings, and on all these questions he has to consult his legal adviser which means cost and expense for everybody.
I have carefully avoided saying one word about the merits of this Bill, or its desirability. What I do say is that at this time it is a shocking thing to put it into operation. It is not for me to exaggerate the state in which the country finds itself. Taxation has never been higher and rates have never been higher. Both by national and local authorities people are being ground down at a time when their income and their employment are being diminished, and we are in process of decay. I do not want to be an alarmist, but who will say that we are not likely to be called back again next October to devise some scheme for raising further money and further taxation to meet our current expenses? It is quite likely. Will anybody say that there are any real signs of the improvement of trade? Would anybody be bold enough to say that he believes in his heart that the Budget Estimates will be realised? This is the time that a National Government, pledged to economy and to keep
trade and industry going, and pledged to pay our way, has chosen to bring into operation this Bill, with its extended expenditure and its extended annoyance and trouble. I have said shortly what I feel deeply. I have not opposed this Measure. I do oppose its coming into operation at this inopportune time. I hope I am wrong in my views, but we have still a long way to go to get out of the financial morass in which we find ourselves. The words of my Amendment give ample opportunity, in a very short time, to bring this Bill into operation, because the words that I would insert are
the 1st April, 1936, or such other date as may be fixed by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
That practically means that the Government may choose to say, when there is a brighter prospect that trade is improving, that a resolution shall be passed by the House of Commons and in the other place in a very short time. In putting this Amendment before the House, I am doing so as a matter of common business and common-sense.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so, I desire to add my plea to that which was so ably put by my hon. and learned Friend in proposing the Amendment. Such Amendments sometimes appear on the Order Paper as purely wrecking Amendments, but I wish to assure the Minister that there is no such intention as far as this Amendment is concerned. I am not one of those people who preface their speeches by saying that "I like the principle of the Bill." I do not. I hate it. This Amendment is not put forward in any sense as attacking the principle of the Bill. It might be the best Bill in the world, but I should still support this Amendment in view of the fact that the Bill imposes at the present time a charge upon local authorities. There is no getting away from that fact whatever. The Minister says that it is not going to impose very big charges on his Department. That may be so. I do not want to seem to think I doubt it, but there is no question whatever that it is going to impose a considerable charge upon local authorities. I know of a town-planning scheme under the 1925 Act that has just gone through at
a cost of £3,000. Some are more expensive and some are less expensive, but so far as I have been able to ascertain the average is about £1000 a time. There are 1,700 local authorities in the country. How many more will be urged or compelled under this Measure to prepare schemes? I have not been able to ascertain. There is no question about it that the direct expenditure imposed upon local authorities by this Measure will be at the very lowest computation £100,000, and I believe that it will be very much nearer ten times that sum. That is to say nothing of the personal expenditure entailed, as has been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend, upon those who have to contest these matters upon one side or the other, or to deal with local authorities, to consult maps and reports, to consult legal advisers, and go into the whole question; and it is well for the House to remember that, under this very complicated Measure, there will be many cases which will have to be fought through various stages in the courts before the final interpretation of the meaning of the Act can be ascertained.
That is a charge which we are imposing on the country at a time when, in every speech made by every responsible Minister, we are told that we are tottering on the verge of financial instability, that public and private economy is essential, that the balancing of the Budget is a question that is trembling from day to day. When on every side we are warned that we have been overspending our income, that our income is dropping, and that we must drop our expenditure to meet it; when we have cut the social services, teachers, police, civil servants, and the unemployed—as I believe, rightly—how can we look these people in the face if we impose now an expenditure the extent of which we do not know for town planning? I do not want to put the case too strongly, but however strongly I put it I could not put it as strongly as I feel. It is flying in the face of every pledge that we gave when we were elected, of everything that we stood for in the eyes of the country. We are here to reduce our expenditure; we are here as a Government of economy—

Sir H. YOUNG: Hear, hear!

Mr. BEAUMONT: The Minister says "Hear, hear!" and yet he proceeds with this Bill, which must impose expenditure upon the local authorities; I defy anyone to prove that that is not so. I do not want to keep the House any longer, but I put forward this plea. Let us assume for the purposes of this Amendment what I do not believe to be the case, namely, that this is a good Bill. Let us assume that the expenditure under it will be money well spent, and that it is in the interest of the country that this work shall be done in this particular way by these particular people. On that assumption I ask the House to say that, as this is no time for imposing further expenditure on local authorities, it will pass this Amendment now, and that, when the prosperity for which we all hope dawns, when the time comes when it is possible for us to increase our expenditure, the Bill shall be put into force. We do not want to impose upon Parliament the task of going through all these matters again. Some of us, like my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) and myself, have been through two Second Readings and two Committee stages. Let us say that we will put the Bill on the Statute Book, but that, in exactly the same way as the Land Value Tax is under suspension, we will put it under suspension, as a hope, and in some cases a wish, to be produced when better times come. I appeal to the House to say perfectly, definitely that we cannot at this time impose more expenditure on local authorities, to say that it will postpone this Measure to happier days and support the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. and learned Friend who moved this Amendment based part of his argument upon the circumstance, which he assumed, that there were some 400 Members of the House of Commons who took no interest in this Bill—

Sir H. CAUTLEY: And have never read it.

10.0 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: Let me assure him that that is not my impression. On the contrary, the impression that I have received has been that there has hardly ever been a Bill in which so many Members of the House of Commons took such a lively and active interest. [Interruption.] I hear something in the nature of what I
might call a humorous appreciation from some of my hon. Friends behind me. Let me say that the hon. Members who laugh have no such information as I have, from the number of private communications which I have received on the subject of this Bill and the number of private difficulties that I have removed. The speeches of the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment were very powerful Second Reading speeches against the Bill. They proceeded from Members who have never concealed the fact that they were opposed to the Bill, but who will, perhaps, forgive me if, on this occasion and on this Amendment, I do not detain the House with a general reestablishment of the principles of the Bill, which, after all, were established by the House of Commons when it gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. One argument has however, emerged on this occasion with which, no doubt, I ought to deal. Let me concede to my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment that there might be some Measure which it was right to pass, but which was of a luxury nature, and which it would only be right to pass if there were a superfluous sum of money available for the purpose. In that case it might be proper to adopt the course which he recommends to-day—to accept the principle and to suspend the operation of the Measure until that sum of money was available. I will concede to my hon. and learned Friend that it is possible that there might be such circumstances, but I suggest to the House today that the conditions in which we are dealing with this Bill have no resemblance of any sort or kind to those conditions, and the House showed its appreciation of that fact when it adopted the Bill on Second Reading. This is not a piece of luxury expenditure; it is a piece of essential economy for making the best of the assets of the county. [Interruption.] That is a fact which has never been adequately apprehended by those Members who, taking a short-sighted, limited view, have opposed this Bill.
What are the conditions of our country to-day? Here is a great nation, far down the course of the history of its development, with a population crowded upon a small area. Does it not suggest itself as obvious to my hon. Friends that in these conditions, with the rapid growth of the
density of population, we must, as the density of population increases, take more and more care and forethought to plan ahead, to think out how we are going to adapt our areas to the necessities of the population? It is not as though we were living in a prairie country, where everyone could go his own way as he pleased. As the density of population increases, we must increase our forethought and design in. order to make the best of the assets which are at the disposal of the population. I believe most sincerely that there is no lesson that we must more earnestly take to heart at the present time than the lesson that, in order to maintain our place in competition with the bitter and intense rivalry of foreign nations, we must exercise to its utmost every capacity of intelligence that we possess to think out what we are going to do ahead, and make the best of the assets of the country for the purpose of the productivity of wealth in the country.
That is the general design of the Bill; that is the principle which underlies it. We shall waste our assets if we do not plan ahead, if we allow residential areas and industrial areas to be chucked down higgledy-piggledy without the slightest attention to their position. We shall waste our assets, and we shall not make the best of the total wealth of the country, not as a kind of general abstraction, but for each individual in the country, whether he be a capitalist, a wage-earner, a landowner, a tenant, or a mere workman who rents his house on a weekly wage. That is what we desire to do. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment asked how we should look them in the face if we called upon them to impose unnecessary charges. I would rather say this. How will the National Government dare to look the nation in the face if it refrains from taking every possible measure that it can take to get the greatest possible value out of the country by planning and by increasing the capital assets of the country to their greatest possible extent, and obtaining for the benefit and enjoyment of the country the greatest possible increment. That is the general purpose of the Bill. It is a direct and urgent necessity in the interests of economy. The cost of planning will be repaid, as they have been in the past over and over again, by actual
and definite increase in value. So far from this being a matter for postponement, it is a matter which, in view of the urgent financial necessities of the country, we shall have no lack of sense of proportion in putting quite high up in the programme of national economy.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I should like to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) on having extracted from the Minister his Third Reading speech. I hope he and I will be able to concoct new ones by to-morrow. I had an Amendment at an earlier stage to change the date of the operation of the Bill, and I believe, if my right hon. Friend had been able to accept it, it would have done one thing that he wants to do and which he has in his mind, the restoration of something of the old England of the past. He hates your modern motor cars, big arterial roads and motor omnibuses. He hankers for the old England of some hundreds of years ago. I wished to insert the old-fashioned English phrase All Fools Day instead of 1st April, but that has gone by the board. I believe that the postponement of the operation of the Bill for three years would do two things. It would avoid, at a period of acute crisis, inflicting a fresh burden on over-burdened taxpayers and ratepayers, and it would give those local authorities who are charged with the responsibility of carrying out the Bill if and when it becomes an Act a chance of carrying out their duties properly and efficiently. During the whole of the six and a-half hours that we have been debating the Bill to-day only two Members have spoken in support of it. They have been the Socialist ex-Solicitor-General and the Socialist ex-Minister of Health.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg the Noble Lord's pardon. I supported an Amendment that he supported himself.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He did not support an Amendment that I supported. He supported an Amendment which one of my friends supported. He did not support any Amendment in favour of which I spoke or to which my name appears on the Paper. Not one Member on this side of the House has said a single word during the Debate in favour of the Bill.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: We are so satisfied with the Minister.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: My recently ennobled Friend has not been here during very much of our discussions to-day. He says he is satisfied with town planning.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: I said we are.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: He speaks for himself and other town planners. I would most urgently commend to his attention a letter in the "Times" from the President of an Association of which he is a member—the Town Planning Association. The letter enjoins upon Members of the House to support the Bill. It was couched in language which I cannot too strongly condemn, language which I can only describe as impudent and contumacious. He enjoined hon. Members to cease their clamour, and I would urgently recommend my hon. Friend to obey the advice of the President of that Association. The question we are discussing is whether the Bill should come into operation in 1933 or 1936.
I would ask hon. Members to consider the new duties that are imposed on local authorities by the Bill. It imposes on local authorities, or, to use my right hon. Friend's phrase, on complexes of local authorities, various new duties. It will impose on them the duty of having the care of every building possessing features of artistic, historical or architectural interest in their area. It will impose on them the duty of seeing that all forestry operations within their area are carried out efficiently and properly and with due regard to the principles of good forestry. Those two duties alone will entail upon each authority, or complex of authorities, the employment of new officials. It is clearly impossible for the ordinary rural or urban district council to decide what improvements should or should not be carried out to houses possessing features of artistic or historical interest. It is clear that some further authority will have to be sought, some further advice will have to be taken, as to whether repairs should or should not be carried out. It is clear that local authorities cannot carry out these duties without employing or having the advice of a new staff. The same applies with regard to forestry operations.
Again, it will be the duty of local authorities to prescribe every detail about every house that is built in England. It will prescribe the site, the size, the height, she design, the external appearance and the material of which such houses are to be built. No one can maintain that that duty can be carried out without the employment of considerable additional staff. The Bill goes on to provide that in every detail of these new duties the local authority, or the complexes of local authorities, shall consult the Minister of Health, who again can hardly avoid employing considerable additional staff to deal with his new duties. It goes further than that. It provides that, where forestry is concerned, the local authorities shall correspond with the Forestry Commissioners. Where buildings possessing historical, architectural or artistic features are concerned the local authority shall correspond, through the Minister, with the Commissioners of Works, and in other cases the local authorities shall correspond with the Minister of Transport.
There is provision in the Bill for an enormous increase of the work of the bureaucracy which, by common consent, always weights so heavily upon the taxpayers and ratepayers. If there is one subject upon which, I believe, there is common agreement, it is that we are, on the whole, over-governed rather than under-governed at the present time. The Bill provides for an enormous extension of the principle of government, through the local authorities, from Whitehall. There is no need for me to deal with the merits of the Bill. The Bill may be good or it may be bad, but the fact that only private Members and hon. Members opposite have spoken in its favour may go some way to show that it is not such a good Bill as all that.

Mr. SKELTON: May I ask my hon. Friend to remember that in regard to the application of the Bill to Scotland, no fewer than three hon. Members from Scotland spoke in favour of the Bill?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: My hon. Friend may be correct, but I was dealing with the Bill as it applied to England. In regard to England, not one English Member, with the exception of two hon. Members who piloted the Bill through Committee last year, has spoken in
favour of it. The House ought to consider very carefully indeed whether it is prepared, at a time when economy, by common consent, is most urgent, when it is agreed that the machinery of government weights unduly heavily upon the productive trades, and when rates and taxes are taking too large a share of the national income, to impose what must be a heavy additional charge and duty upon every local authority, upon the Ministry of Health, and upon centralised government in Whitehall. I believe that if we pass the Bill we shall regret it very bitterly. My right hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill was interested primarily in one aspect of it, namely, in preserving the amenities of rural England. No doubt we all remember the Bill which he, as a private Member, introduced one Friday afternoon. That is his interest in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord's remarks are really an argument against the whole Bill and the Amendment only deals with the postponement of the coming into operation of the Act.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: My argument is directed towards showing that the Bill will impose a heavy charge upon the taxpayers and the ratepayers. It will impose heavy new duties upon them which they will hardly be able to assume, and for that reason—that they will require additional finance, and more than one year in order to assume those new duties adequately—I think that four years' notice is the least period in which they can really be prepared to take on the very heavy duties which are to be imposed upon them by the Bill. I do not argue that the interests of my right hon. Friend in the Bill is largely directed towards the aspect of the preservation of amenities. That is a Third Reading point which I will not develop. I believe that in the long run neither individual local authorities, nor even the "complex of local authorities" will be found very competent in preserving England. Be that as it may, a heavy new charge will be imposed, and heavy additional duties, which cannot adequately be assumed within the period mentioned. I support the Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Not being, as far as I know, one of the gallant 400 expressing any great enthusiasm for the Bill, may I press
the Front Government Bench to give some reply to questions which have been put by the seconder of the Amendment in regard to the cost of the Bill? I heard the admirable homily of the Minister of Health, punctuated so loyally and dutifully by the "Hear, hears!"of the Parliamentary Secretary. He completely ignored the questions which were addressed to him. I am sorry if I have offended the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am not offended; I am amused. It is. certainly up to me to support my Minister, just as it is up to those who support the National Government to support the National Government.

Captain CROOKSHANK: All I can say is that that observation ought to be addressed to some hon. Members who are nearer to the hon. Member than I am. For my part, we are not amused. I was trying to direct the attention of the House to the very vital question of cost. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment threw out some figures. I do not know whether he is right, but, knowing him, I expect that he is right. I have no idea from my personal knowledge whether the figures he gave are anything like a correct estimate, but before we definitely agree that this Bill is to come into effect next year I should like to know whether the estimate is anything like correct. The Minister of Health made a very nice, charming speech, a sort of five-year plan; the kind of thing I have no doubt that was said when the Soviet Government introduced their measure in Russia. There was no estimate of cost. I do not suppose that there was any estimate of cost in the Russian case. There are still people in this country, they may be old-fashioned, who agree that the less this House legislates the better, and that if we could only direct our attention to administrative economies we should be fulfilling our duties to the National Government, which the Parliamentary Secretary has so much at heart, just as I have, better than by passing so much legislation.
The principal merit of this Amendment, which the Mover and Seconder did not stress, lies in the second part of it. I do not suppose they care about 1936 any
more than I do, except that I suppose it is a sort of general principle in politics that if you are going to do the electorate a good turn it is a good thing to do it just before the election. If, therefore, this Bill is really a marvellous effort on the part of the Government, let us keep it until just before the election and go to the electorate and say: "This is what we have done for you." If that is not the case I wash out 1936 and I call attention to the second part of the Amendment, which says:
or such other date as may be fixed by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
That seems to me the point of the Amendment. I do not care about 1936, but I do think that, in the critical times through which we are going, if this Bill is going to cost money we should scrutinise it very carefully. Every Measure that comes before this Parliament, however long it may last, should be judged primarily by that criterion. I think I have said that before this Session, and I suppose I shall have occasion to say it again if I am lucky enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. The Minister did not answer that point. Let us accept the Amendment that the Bill should become an Act of Parliament by Resolution of both Houses. No one knows what the coming months hold in store for us. No one would be so rash as to make any prophecy about that. There is a great deal to be said for the idea, after the Committee and the House have gone through this large Measure and have come to some sort of agreement about the details, that as soon as it is suitable, as soon as the Chancellor of the Exchequer can say, "Go ahead, everything is clear along the line; the money is there, carry on with the good work," the House should have one last opportunity of passing a Resolution saying: "The moment has come." Everybody knows that there are many points in the Bill which are highly desirable and some people—not everybody—know that there are points in it which are not so good, like the curate's egg. Therefore, let us hold on to the Bill as long as we can. If local authorities will have to find money to put it into effect let us hold our hands and accept the Amendment which says that it shall not come into force until a Resolution has been passed approving it when the appropriate moment comes.

Mr. HOROBIN: I do not propose to interfere in the painful altercation between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and the hon. and gallant Member whose remark suggests that the is a successor to Queen Victoria, nor to participate in the fateful scene between a member of the new nobility and a member of the old nobility, the representative of the ancient monuments of West Derbyshire, but to confine myself to the Amendment. May I give the House two specific instances to show that the Bill is justified purely on the ground of expense? There is within my own knowledge at least two cases where local authorities are at this moment in the almost incredible position of having to find powers and money for slum clearances upon areas upon which every building has been erected since the War. The first is the case of an area which has been allowed to be developed in a way BO incredibly bad that the sanitary conditions are now intolerable, and although there is not a single House there which was in existence before the War, slum clearance has had to be invoked in order to clear the site. It is not an unfair extension of the idea of economy to say that if that is the condition under which a good deal of England is now being developed, the sooner it is stopped the better, purely on the grounds of economy.
The other case is of a rather different nature, but in some ways even more striking. I refer to recent events which have occurred near the town of Doncaster. It will hardly be believed that that unfortunate authority is actually, so I am informed, in this difficult situation. A local building contractor was endeavouring to build houses upon certain land in the neighbourhood. The authority told the man that the land was subject to flooding, and endeavoured to prevent him from building. He objected, and tried to discover whether there were any existing bylaws which would enable him to build. He got into correspondence with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry had to inform him that the by-laws of the authority were not sufficient to prevent that development. If it were not the lucky case that that particular piece of land is now under water there is probably no way, without town planning powers of Borne sort or another, in which that authority could have prevented that development. I do not know the precise cost
upon the particular locality, but it is sufficient for me to know that that kind of situation can and does arise.
10.30 p.m.
I will not weary the House with instances of the same sort, but purely on the ground of saving money this Bill is abundantly justified. If it had been passed years ago we should have saved money, and every year it is put off we are wasting money. On these grounds alone, without bringing in all the disgracefully sentimental grounds of which Members have thought it necessary to talk, without giving way to any of those foolish, unnatural, and disgraceful emotions of sympathy with the beauty of the countryside, but on the pure ground of £ s. d., of saving money, I suggest that the Bill is urgently needed, and I sincerely hope that the Amendment, if pressed to a Division, will meet with the reception that it abundantly deserves.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I am rather surprised to hear my hon. Friend who has just spoken advancing as one of the reasons for the passage of the Bill a reference to recent flooding in certain areas. I ask, how comes it that in the Doncaster area a new housing estate happened to be constituted in a zone which has been under water for weeks, a zone which the authority ought to have known would be under water when the estate was developed? That is one of the instances of the kind of thing we get from the kind of authorities who will administer this Bill. It is one of the strongest possible reasons for objecting to this legislation coming into force now that the country is hard put to it to economise in every possible way. So far from the Bill being likely to lead to economies in flooded areas, or in any other areas, it is one of those Measures which will add one more burden on local authorities and make one more call on the national Exchequer, and I hope that the House will postpone it to a more propitious time.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I ask the Minister to give a reply to the questions that have been put to him. The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) as usual was helpful in this Debate. He referred to a slum area which had been developed since the War. I would like to know whether the plans
for the houses on that estate were passed by any authority, whether the authority took the trouble to have a planning committee or took the trouble to enforce any of the model by-laws which they could perfectly well have adopted?

Mr. HOROBIN: The difficulty in this case, as should be well known to the hon. and gallant Member, is that you are not allowed to plan until the development is right on top of you, which is the present law. The development takes place before your plan is there. The whole point about our attempt in this Bill, partly hamstrung by the Minister under pressure from those like the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, is that we want to get a plan done in time. If you have to wait until the development of an area is seriously compromised these things will happen.

Captain WATERHOUSE: This is not a question of general development or plan; it is a question of new houses being built by individual builders. If a local authority is so completely idle or incompetent that it is not prepared to pass the necessary by-laws to enforce necessary sanitary conditions, which it can do under the existing law, what hope have we if we hand the whole country over to their care at such a time as the present? The Minister spoke about the Second Reading Debate, and mentioned that the Bill passed unopposed. The Parliamentary Secretary gave him an apt reply by referring to party loyalty. Loyalty is real on this side, and we do support the Government on their main propositions. It was for that reason that the Second Reading went through without a Division, not because we were in any hurry to have a Bill enforced on 1st April next year.
In his remarks the Minister spoke about the rapid growth of industry, the proper disposal of our assets, the mobilisation of the whole of our intelligence. I ask him as a confirmed individualist, as I know he is, whether he thinks that the best industrial intelligence of this country is to be found among the industrialists or among the town planners. Within the last few months we have had a tremendous fiscal change in this country. We have reversed the policy which was in force for 80 years. Who is to say what repercussions that change is
going to have on development in this country? In a few months the Minister, I hope, and other Ministers are going to Ottawa to discuss further great Imperial developments. Who is to say what repercussions those developments may have in this country? Are we now in this year of grace to tie ourselves to this town planning Measure, or are we going to put ourselves and our industries in the hands of the industrialists and allow them, on their own initiative, to decide where they are going to put their factories? The factories are sufficiently governed by Factory Acts—

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Surely this has nothing to do with the Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member's argument does not appear to be directed towards the issue raised in the Amendment but against the Bill as a whole.

Captain WATERHOUSE: With great respect, Sir, I think the argument that we have just reversed our fiscal policy and are about to have a conference which may result in tremendous Imperial changes is definitely relevant to the question of the postponement of this Bill. I am not speaking against the general principle of the Bill. What I am arguing is that at a time of industrial and commercial change it is far better to leave development, properly controlled as it is at present, in the hands of industrialists and commercial houses, rather than to hand it over to the town planners who may well mar all that progress which we hope the Government are going to make possible in this country.

Sir WILLIAM RAY: I beg of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench to give an answer to the question which has been addressed to them, because those of us who are engaged in the work of local government are profoundly disturbed and are in a difficulty to know what we should do to-night. We believe that the town, planning of built-up areas is essential. I do not think we believe that it is so essential that it ought to be done all in a moment, but, if the Act which was so useful in regard to undeveloped areas was a success, we believe that town planning must at some time or other be extended to built-up areas. What I am afraid of is that lest in this time of great difficulty
burdens should be added to the local authorities which they are unable to carry without disturbing existing services.
For years, under the guidance of this House, we have been developing public health and education and other services of that kind which everyone regards as essential. In order to meet the difficulties with which the House has been faced during the last year, we have had to make extraordinary departures in the administration of those services, and I am convinced that in the next year the House will ask us to deal still further with those services. Is it right that established services should be diminished in value, while at the same time we should be asked to add to our administrative expenditure by a new Measure? If those in charge of the Bill can assure us that the increase of expenditure involved is to be infinitesimal, one will not mind; but I recognise that we have already cut services to a considerable extent, and I believe that we shall be asked to cut them still further. I put it to the House that it will be difficult to justify a diminution in the efficiency—if you like to put it that way—of certain services already established if at the same time we are to be asked to add to our administrative expenditure. That is why I beg that we can get some assurance from those in charge of the Bill in that direction.

Sir H. YOUNG: By permission of the House. The hon. Member who spoke behind me appealed to me to answer the questions that have arisen in the Debate on this Amendment. It is apparent that the only question that has arisen which needs a specific answer is that of economy. Some hon. Members I think did not hear what I had to say on the general aspect of economy when I first replied. Then I dealt with the general aspect, pointing out that this is not a Bill to incur luxury expenditure. It is a Bill for a profitable investment, by which, by a very small charge for administrative expenditure, a very great work can be done to conserve the assets of the country. I must not repeat that argument, but let me deal rather with that aspect of the question to which attention has been called by the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray), who speaks with so much authority on all matters that concern the government of the county
of London, and who speaks, I may add, on behalf of an authority which has been in the forefront in pressing for the extension of the powers contained in this Bill.
If I understand the hon. Member and he has expressed the general feeling of the House, apprehension is felt lest, by any action on the part of the Ministry or any automatic action resulting from this Measure, unnecessary expenditure should be enforced upon local authorities. Let me make it as clear as I possibly can that, in the first place, it would be totally contrary to the policy of the Government to enforce any policy of the sort which was not economic and which was not almost certain of earning a return. On the contrary, at the present time our effort, our policy, is directly pointed towards economy of local expenditure, as of national expenditure.
Is there anything in this Bill which will entail the expenditure of unnecessary sums by local authorities in the nature of luxury expenditure? No, it is quite clear that there is not. In the first place, it is difficult, of course, to convince the House of this by definite figures, because it is so much a matter of administrative experience and not actually of positive statistics that can be given. But, as a matter of administrative experience, the cost involved in planning schemes is very small indeed in comparison with the positive gains and the increase in value which follow from such schemes. I could quote numerous cases in which the actual few hundred pounds that a planning scheme costs has been repaid 10 times over by definite, positive increase, realised increase, in capital value as a result of the scheme.
Now I come finally to the definite point put by the hon. Member who spoke last and who seeks an assurance that no expenditure will be forced on local authorities, including his own powerful and important local authority, in advance, as I understand, of what may be considered as their own policy in the matter. He may be assured that that is not possible, and that the initiative in such matters must rest with the greater authorities and can hardly be forced from the outside. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] As regards the larger authorities it must be so. So much is in accordance with the policy of the times and of the Govern-
ment. I have no hesitation in stating to the House that it is not part of the policy of the Government or of the Ministry of Health, in so far as I am responsible for the administration, recklessly to enforce artificial activity in town planning upon the town planning authorities of the country. On the contrary, it is the policy, and will be while I am responsible for it, to look upon this as a matter of local initiative. The function of the central authority is not the function of enforcing artificial activity, but of fostering and encouraging the spontaneous efforts in the direction of useful planning that will come from the authorities themselves. I should have thought that there would have been no misapprehension of the attitude with which I have approached this Bill, but as there is a mistaken atmosphere with regard to the general lines of policy, I feel it my duty to put the matter right. This is a matter in which the function of the central government and the Ministry is to foster and encourage the local initiative of the authorities themselves.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with Sections 33 and 47?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I cannot help thinking that the Minister's answer is one of the most unsatisfactory that he has given. In the present condition of the country we cannot afford to invest for posterity. We have to save all the money we can to keep the country going and not provide for something that may or may not be to the future benefit of the country. With regard to the Minister's statement that only the larger authorities can initiate schemes, Clause 33 states definitely:
If the Minister is satisfied after the holding of a local inquiry that a scheme ought to be prepared by any authority as respects any land, he may by order require the authority to prepare a scheme.
Clause 47 is even stronger:
The council of every county borough or urban district containing a population according to the census taken in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one of more than twenty thousand shall before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four,
etc. It seems that any ordinary urban or rural district council can, if they wish,
lay down a definite scheme of development for any part of their area. As the whole of the south of England looks as if it will be industrialised, what will be the position if some foreign manufacturer or coalowner from the north of England wants to come down and start a new industry? Any large farmer, or any landowner who owns land which is used entirely for his pleasure or as a health, resort can go to the council and protest. The new industry will be held up. It is important to the country to-day that industrialists should be able to start fresh industries and employ some of the millions who are unemployed, yet a local council, who knows nothing about industry as a rule, can say, "No, this is not to be done; this land is to be planned out in accordance with our local engineer's requirements."
With regard to expenditure, only last week the House threw out a Bill for a bridge over the Thames. It was thrown out entirely on the question of expenditure, because this House would not allow that money to be spent, and, whether it was required or not, it was put off for the moment. The House is being asked to pass a Bill which means increased expense even on the Minister's statement that it will be only a few hundred pounds. It is utterly ridiculous to say that any local authority, limited to its own borough engineer or architect, can possibly carry out the duties detailed in this Bill. More officials will have to be employed and more salaries paid, and in the net result it is very doubtful whether it will really form an investment for this country. The real investment for the country to-day is to stop all expenditure and cut down all legislation to the very minimum. I shall certainy vote for this Amendment if it be carried to a Division.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I should not have intervened but for the remarks made by the hon. Member who has just sat down. This Bill is urgent for these reasons: If you are to have, as we hope will be the ease, industrial development under the new Import Duties and so on, we want to-see that development on right lines. Property, and especially house property, in residential districts is very cheap to-day, and I can easily conceive of many areas where new industries would buy a house or property in a residential district and im-
mediately the value of that district would depreciate. The result would be loss to the rates of the local authority, loss of taxation and a general depreciation of amenities. That can be stopped by this Bill. I should like also to point out that if the Bill does not start in April, 1933, then the 1925 Act will carry on and the expenses of that will also carry on. The

Minister has assured us that the expenses of this Bill will be negligible, and for these reasons I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'thirty-three' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 66.

Division No. 213.
AYES.
[10.52 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Petherick, M.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n. Bilst'n)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Hicks, Ernest George
Potter, John


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Aske, Sir Robert William
Holdsworth, Herbert
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hornby, Frank
Ramsden, E.


Balniel, Lord
Horobin, Ian M.
Rankin, Robert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rathbone, Eleanor


Batey, Joseph
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rea, Walter Russell


Becauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Beaumont, Hn. R. E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bossom, A. C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Boulton, W. W.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Robinson, John Roland


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
John, William
Rosbotham, S. T.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rothschild, James A. de


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Ker, J. Campbell
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Burnett, John George
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Clarry, Reginald George
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Slater, John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somerveille, Annesley A (Windsor)


Conant, R. J. E.
Leckie, J. A.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cooke, Douglas
Leonard, William
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Copeland, Ida
Levy, Thomas
Spears, Brigadler-General Edward L.


Cranborne, Viscount
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Crossley, A. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stevenson, James


Daggar, George
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Stones, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Storey, Samuel


Denman, Hon. R D.
Mabane, William
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Strauss, Edward A.


Dunglass, Lord
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Edwards, Charles
McKie, John Hamilton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McLean, Major Alan
Thomas, James p. L. (Hereford)


Elmley, Viscount
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Emrys-Evans, p. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Tinker, John Joseph


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Magnay, Thomas
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Milne, Charles
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major James
White, Henry Graham


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, William Shepherd
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Goldie, Noel B.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Munro, Patrick
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
wills, Wilfrid D.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
North, Captain Edward T.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Grimston, R. V.
Nunn, William
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Groves, Thomas E.
O'Connor, Terence James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'V'noaks)


Grundy, Thomas W.
O' Donovan, Dr. William James



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Palmer, Francis Noel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hales, Harold K.
Parkinson, John Allen
Mr. Womersley and Major George


Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)
Patrick, Colin M.
Davies.


Hanbury, Cecil
Pearson, William G.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Albery, Irving James
Gower, Sir Robert
Ray, Sir William


Apsley, Lord
Greene, William P. C.
Remer, John R.


Astbury, Lieut.-Con. Frederick Wolfe
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Broadbent, Colonel John
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Carver, Major William H.
Kimball, Lawrence
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
McCorquodale, M. S.
Train, John


Craven-Ellis, William
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Drewe, Cedric
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Nail, Sir Joseph



Ganzoni, Sir John
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Glossop, C. W. H.
Pike, Cecil F.
Sir Henry Cautley and Marquess of Hartington.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to the Validity and Date of Operation of Schemes and Compulsory Purchase Orders.)

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move to leave out the Schedule.
Later, I am moving a new Schedule, to carry out an undertaking which was given by me in Committee after a long discussion. This Schedule deals with the machinery which I am now providing for securing control by the House of Commons over the final stage of the approval of schemes, and, in relation to any alterations in the existing law, in order to accommodate the existing law to the provisions of a scheme. The Schedule is divided into three parts. The first part makes provision for laying schemes before Parliament. The second part deals with the procedure for challenging the validity of schemes in the courts, and the third part deals with the procedure for challenging the validity of Compulsory Purchase Orders. The last two parts are practically the same as they were before. It is only in the first part that there is any difference. That general procedure that we arrived at in Committee, for securing revision by the House of Commons of a scheme, provides that an affirmative resolution of the House is necessary when there is an alteration in the existing law, except in relation to certain specified Statutes which have been scheduled in the Bill. It also provides for the negative procedure in relation to all the other schemes. The House will remember that we have already on Report had a Debate on the question of
the affirmative or negative resolution, and the House has accepted that procedure.
The only other matter that I need mention is this. The House will see that it is necessary to provide for the case of there being a change in the scheme introduced, owing to a difference of opinion between the House and the Minister when the Resolution is placed before the House. When an affirmative Resolution is placed before the House, it may be rejected. When the annulment procedure is followed, it may be that the House differs from the scheme which has been approved by the Minister, and desires that some other terms should be introduced. In that case, unless we made some provision, there would be no machinery for preserving the procedure on the scheme up to that time, and it would all be wasted. That would be a pity. Therefore, the mechanism which we have introduced, and which somewhat extends the length of the Schedule, is to say that, if there is a difference of opinion, that is to say, if the House disapproves of the scheme or of the action of the Minister on the affirmative or the negative procedure, then the scheme shall go back to the point at which it was before it received Ministerial assent, so that the Minister may be able to bring the scheme along again with whatever change the House has directed shall be made.
It further provides for the case when, although the House has not formally differed from the Minister, it has expressed a desire, to which the Minister has expressed his willingness to conform,
on the affirmative or negative procedure. In that case we say also that, where there has been no direct negative of the scheme or of the Minister's action, but an undertaking on the part of the Minister to accede to the desire of the House, there again the scheme shall go back to the stage at which it stood before the Ministerial assent was given, and whatever changes the House has requested will be incorporated in the scheme, the scheme will once more get Ministerial assent, and will come again before the House for final approval under the positive or negative procedure. That is the scheme of procedure which is laid down in the Schedule. I am now moving to leave out the First Schedule, in order that I may introduce at a later stage the one which I have described.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I think the House ought to realise that the new Schedule which is being brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman is a constitutional precedent. We are getting accustomed to constitutional precedents from the National Government, but in this case the curious position arises that, where a scheme has been expressly approved by both Houses, the courts are to be given power to say that it is not within the Act. As far as I know, that has never been done before. The procedure as regards the courts which is laid down in the second and third parts of the Schedule is, of course, a familiar procedure; it is the same procedure which is in force under the Housing Acts. But there it is not combined with an approval of the Order by this House and by the other Chamber; and when you wed that scheme, as regards the validity of an Order, to an approval by this House, you then reach an entirely new constitutional position, namely, that, after this House has expressly considered a scheme made under an Act of Parliament, and has decided that the scheme is to come into force in the terms in which it is laid before the House, then the courts are able, upon complaint under the second part of the Schedule, to say that the scheme is not to come into force because in their view it is not in accordance with the terms of the Act, or does not comply with some condition precedent, or for some reason of that sort. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman or the House realises how serious a departure that is. It is really
for the first time putting this House completely under the thumb of the courts. This House will be entirely losing its independence so far as approval of these schemes is concerned.

Mr. E. BROWNindicated dissent.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he was wrong. I quite agree that it is not BO in every case, but I am taking the case where there is an express approval, as there may be under Part I of the Schedule, of a scheme by the two Houses of Parliament. The scheme can be laid before them and they can approve. Take a case where there is a suspensory provision. It will be laid before them and it will have to be a positive approval. It will be open to the courts to negative the scheme, possibly on some point which has been discussed in Parliament. It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman has got up at the Box, explained the scheme to the House and the House has voted on it and approved it and decided that it is to come into force. Then some disgruntled landowner goes to the courts and challenges the validity of the scheme, possibly on some point that has been laid before the House. The courts can say, "We do not care what the House of Commons has done. We decide that it is not a valid scheme and it is not to come into force." That is a very undesirable state of affairs. For this House to give up its sovereignty and hand it over to the courts seems undesirable and I hope before this goes to another place, the right hon. Gentleman will very carefully consider whether it really is his desire that such circumstances should be possible, or whether it should not be the case that, once a scheme has been definitely approved by the House, it should not be open to objection in the courts. We agree with the provisions in the original Bill. Do not ask Parliament to approve schemes. Leave it to the courts to say whether a scheme approved by the Minister cornea within the ambit of the Act or not. Now by introducing the condition of laying the scheme on the Table of the House, and making it possible for Parliament to give an affirmatory approval to the scheme in certain cases, the House is put in the position of having something upon which it has definitely decided being set aside by the courts of law. That is entirely con-
trary to constitutional practice and is not a position in which this House should put itself.

Mr. E. BROWN: I do not think the position is quite as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is true where the House has given a negative approval, that is, not given a positive decision, but it is not true that, when the House has given a definite, affirmative decision, that process can take place. Paragraph 6 of the new Schedule is an adequate reply to the point. It makes it perfectly clear that there is no such constitutional change as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, and that the right of Parliament to be the final authority in law making are safeguarded.

Amendment agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Matters to be dealt with by Schemes.)

Amendment made: In page 62, line 28, leave out paragraph 5.—[Sir H. Young.]

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in page 63, line 16, to leave out paragraph 17.
The Schedule relates to Clause 11, which says that a scheme shall contain provisions in particular for dealing with any of the matters mentioned in Subsection (2, a). The paragraph I wish to omit reads:
Application with the necessary modifications and adaptations of statutory enactments.
This gives power to the makers of schemes to modify and adapt any statutory enactments they please. It is an extraordinary power for Parliament to delegate to makers of schemes, and is quite unnecessary. It will be observed that there are two powers to alter the Statute where it is necessary to promote or expedite development. It is an ample power to meet any necessity there might be of making an alteration in the Statute. The paragraph which I wish to omit makes it perfectly general to alter the law. The Minister shakes his head. Let me remind him of what was done under a similar provision in the 1925 Act, which contained rather similar provisions. Under that Act they have so ordered the existing Statutes that they are deliberately making laws under Section 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, which relates
solely to private street works, and the Private Streets Works Act, 1892. The nature of the works which can be acquired by these Acts has actually been altered by adding the words "incidental works." This is a power which ought not to be given to the makers of schemes. There is no reason whatever for it. The Government do not like the report of the Committee which investigated the powers of Ministers and I would refer the Minister to one of the paragraphs on page 59, in which they say:
It cannot but be regarded as inconsistent with the principles of Parliamentary Government that the subordinate law-making authority should be given by the superior law-making authority power to amend a statute which has been, passed by superior authority.
If the makers of those schemes are to alter the law in the way this power would give them the opportunity of doing what is the good of laws at all? I ask the Minister to agree to this Amendment.

Sir ROBERT GOWER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I believe the apprehensions and criticism of my hon. and learned Friend are based upon a misapprehension. This is a power which has been part of town planning legislation ever since the Act of 1909. I am advised that this paragraph does not give the local authority any additional power to alter the existing law beyond those powers which we have discussed so carefully. It allows a town-planning authority to make no statutory alteration outside the scheme of limitation at which we have arrived. All that it does is to give power to the local authority to incorporate the statutory provisions with any verbal alterations which are necessary, in order to make the statutory provisions applicable. If we were to omit paragraph 17, the result would be that we should oblige the local authority, in drawing up a scheme, in every case to do it, not by reference to the provision, but to set it out at great length in a cumbrous way which would mean unnecessary verbiage in the scheme. I can understand the apprehensions of my hon. and learned Friend, and, if his criticisms were just, I should at once meet him on the point, and put matters right. I am prepared to consider the matter and see whether his criticisms
have any justification which my advisers have not yet been able to detect, but as at present advised these powers have the very much more limited application to which I have referred. If, however, on scrutiny I find that there is justification for my hon. and learned Friend's apprehension. I will endeavour to meet him.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the reference I gave to Section 150, but, as he assures me that he will consult his advisers, I will accept his word and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. E, BROWN: I beg to move, in page 63, line 21, at the end, to insert the words:
and making provision for the recovery thereof in a court of summary jurisdiction.
This Amendment carries out a pledge given in Committee that the penalties for infringement of the schemes should be recoverable in a court of summary jurisdiction.

Amendment agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Part I: Provisions as to the compulsory acquisition of land. Part II: Restrictions on acquisition of land.)

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move in page 66, line 41, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
where any Government department other than the Ministry of Health is concerned with the functions of the undertakers.
This Amendment is necessary because in the case of some undertakers the supervising Department is not the Ministry of Transport.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 66, line 42, leave out the words "Minister of Transport," and insert instead thereof the words:
Secretary of State or other Minister in charge of that department.

In line 45, leave out the words "Minister of Transport," and insert instead thereof the words "Secretary of State or other Minister."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 66, line 45, at the end, to insert the words:
3. The Minister shall not confirm an order for the compulsory purchase of any land forming the site of a highway which has been stopped up under a provision contained in a scheme if any person who, under section one hundred and twenty eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, is, or would upon a disposition thereof be, entitled to a right of pre-emption in respect of the land, has given notice of his desire to purchase the land, or if a right of preemption under the said section has been exercised in respect of the land.
This Amendment carries out the pledge given to the hon. Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Kimball) to protect owners of adjoining land who have a right of pre-emption. The Amendment secures that where this right has been exercised in respect of land forming the site of a stopped-up highway a compulsory order is not to be confirmed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 67, line 44, after the word "applies," insert the words:
or any of the bridges referred to in section eleven of that Act."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Matters in relation to which Regulations shall be made and effect to be secured thereby.)

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 68, line 34, at the beginning, to insert the words:
that the statement is not submitted to the Minister before the expiration of three months from the date when the service of notices of the taking effect of the resolution to prepare the scheme has been completed and.
This carries out a pledge given in Committee and its object is to prevent a preliminary statement being submitted to the Minister for approval so quickly that an owner will have no time to scrutinise it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 68, line 35, leave out the words "to the Minister."

In line 36, leave out the words "to prepare the scheme."

In page 69, line 42, leave out the words "statement of the proposed modifications," and insert instead thereof the words:
copy of the scheme as proposed to be modified."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Adaptations and modifications of this Act in its application to Scotland.)

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 72, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
Local Government Act, 1929. Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929.
11.30 p.m.
There is a series of Amendments to this Schedule, but they are all of a drafting character, and put into Scottish form an Amendment which the House has made during the Report stage. I do not think that I need deal with them separately unless I am invited to explain any particular proposal, and probably this general explanation will suffice at this moment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 74, line 24, leave out the words "Sub-sections (3) and (4)" and insert instead thereof the words "Sub-section (4)."

In page 74, leave out lines 25 to 27.

In page 75, line 14, after the word "words," insert the word "county."

Leave out lines 27 to 34.

In page 76, line 46, at the end, insert the words "S. 35. Sub-section (3) shall be omitted."

In page 77, line 23, at the end, insert the words:
S. 38. In the proviso to sub-section (1) for the words from 'any Government department' to the end of the sub-section there shall be substituted the words 'any other Government department is concerned with the functions of the undertakers, consult with that department and 6hall, if the undertakers whose consent is sought so desire, afford them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by one or more persons appointed for the purpose by the Department and the other Government department concerned acting jointly.'
S. 42. In sub-section (2) for the words 'by written notice served on the clerk of the court and the authority' there shall be substituted the words 'by giving notice of appeal,' and the words 'for the petty sessional division or place comprising the land on which the advertisement or hoarding is displayed or set up 'shall be omitted; and in sub—sections (3) and (4) for the word 'court,' wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word 'sheriff.'

In page 79, leave out lines 15 to 18, and insert instead thereof the words:
The definitions of 'district' and 'road' shall be omitted.

In line 34, leave out the first word "and."

In line 36, at the end, insert the words:
and in paragraph 18 for the words 'recovery thereof in a court of summary jurisdiction,' there shall be substituted the words 'recovery thereof by summary proceedings before the sheriff.'

In page 80, line 9, at the end, insert the words:
In the proviso to paragraph 2 of Part II for the words 'any Government department,' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words 'any other Government department is concerned with the functions of the undertakers, consult with that department and shall, if the undertakers so desire, afford them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by one or more persons appointed for the purpose by the Department and the other Government department concerned acting jointly.'
In paragraph 3 of Part II for the words 'section one hundred and twenty-eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' there shall be substituted the words 'section one hundred and twenty-one of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845.'

In line 17, at the end, insert the words:
and for the purposes of paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule the expression 'highway' shall not include a bridge to which the Bridges Act, 1929, applies, or the approaches to any such bridge, or the road carried by any such bridge and approaches.

Orders of the Day — NEW SCHEDULE.

Part I.

Provisions as to the laying of Schemes before Parliament.

1. Where a scheme is approved or made by the Minister he shall cause it to be laid forthwith before both Houses of Parliament.

2.—(1) A scheme which contains a provision suspending the operation of a statutory enactment, other than an enactment which is an excepted enactment for the purposes of this paragraph, shall not be capable of coming into operation until a resolution approving the suspensory provision has been passed by each House of Parliament.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph the following are excepted enactments: —

(a) section one hundred and twelve of the Public Health Act, 1875, as extended by section fifty—one of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act, 1907; '
(b) the Public Health (Buildings in Streets) Act, 1888;
(c) sections thirty—three and thirty—four of the Public Health Act, 1925;
(d) section five of the Roads Improvement Act, 1925;
1745
(e) an enactment making such provision as might, by virtue of any Act of Parliament, have been made in relation to the area to which the scheme applies by means of a bye—law, order, or regulation not requiring confirmation by Parliament;
(f) any enactment which has been previously suspended by some other scheme which came or was capable of coming into operation, and any enactment having substantially the same effect as any such enactment.

3. Subject as aforesaid a scheme approved or made as aforesaid shall be capable of coming into operation in accordance with the provisions of Part II of this Schedule unless—

(1) either House of Parliament within & period of twenty—one days on which that House has sat after the scheme has been laid before it resolves that the scheme or some provision thereof ought not to come into operation; or
(2) on a motion that a provision in the scheme be approved or that the scheme or some provision thereof ought not to come into operation an undertaking is given by, or on behalf of, the Minister to modify the scheme.

4. If in the case of any scheme—

(1) a resolution to approve a suspensory provision contained in the scheme is not agreed to by either House of Parliament; or
(2) it has been resolved by either House of Parliament that the scheme or some provision contained therein ought not to come into operation; or
(3) there has in relation to the scheme been given any such undertaking as is mentioned in paragraph three of this Part of this Schedule;

the following provisions shall have effect: —

(a) if the scheme is a scheme which was prepared or adopted by a local authority or joint committee it may be modified by the Minister in like manner, and the like farther proceedings may be taken thereon, as if the Minister had not approved it;
(b) if the scheme is a scheme which was made by the Minister, a new scheme may be made by in in like manner, and the like proceedings may be taken thereon as if the first mentioned scheme had not been made.

Part II.

Provisions as to the Validity and Date of Operation of Schemes.

1. So soon as may be after a scheme has, regard being had to the provisions of Part I of this Schedule, become capable of coming into operation, the local authority or joint committee by whom the scheme was prepared or adopted, or is deemed to have been prepared or adopted, shall publish in a local newspaper a notice in the prescribed form stating that the scheme
1746
has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and is capable of coming into operation and naming a place where a copy of the scheme and of any map therein referred to may be seen at all reasonable hours, and shall serve a like notice on every person to whom this Act or the regulations made by the Minister thereunder require notice to be given.
2. If any person aggrieved by a scheme desires to question the validity thereof, or of any provision contained therein, on the ground that it is not within the powers of this Act, or that any requirement of this Act, or of any order or regulation made thereunder, has not been complied with in relation to the scheme, he may, at any time within six weeks after the date on which the notice required by the provisions of paragraph one of this Part of this Schedule is published, make an application for the purpose to the High Court.
3. The High Court, on an application made under this Part of this Schedule,—

(a) may by interim order suspend the operation of the scheme, or of any provision contained therein, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant, until the final determination of the proceedings; and
(b) if satisfied that the scheme, or any provision contained therein, is not within the powers of this Act, or that the interests of, the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of this Act, or of any order or regulation made thereunder, not having been complied with, may quash the scheme or any provision contained therein, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant.

4.Subject to the provisions of paragraphs two and three of this Part of this Schedule, the validity of a scheme shall not, either before or after it has been approved or made, be called in question in any legal proceedings whatsoever, and shall become operative at the expiration of six weeks from the date on which the notice required by the provisions of paragraph one of this Part of this Schedule is published.
5. Except by leave of the Court of Appeal no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal under this Part of this Schedule.
6. The validity of a provision in a scheme which has been approved by resolution passed by each House of Parliament shall not be called in question on any ground under the provisions of this Part of this Schedule or in any legal proceedings whatsoever, nor shall any such provision be suspended or quashed under the provisions of this part of this Schedule.

Part III.

Provisions as to the Validity and Date of Operation of Compulsory Purchase Orders.

1. So soon as may b after a compulsory purchase order has been confirmed
1747
by the Minister the authority by whom the order was made shall publish in a local newspaper a notice in the prescribed from stating that the order has been. so confirmed and naming a place where a copy of the order and of any map therein referred to may be seen at all reasonable hours and shall serve a like notice on every person who, having given notice of his objection to the order, appeared at the local inquiry in support of his objection.
2. If any person aggrieved by a compulsory purchase order desires to question the validity thereof, or of any provision contained therein, on the ground that it is not within the powers of this Act or that any requirement of this Act or of any order or regulation made thereunder has not been complied with in relation to the order, he may within six weeks after the date on which notice of its confirmation is published in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph make an application for the purpose to the High Court, and upon any such application the Court—

(a) may by interim order suspend the operation of the order or of any provision contained therein, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant, until the final determination of the proceedings; and
(b) if satisfied that the order or any provision contained therein is not within the powers of this Act or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of this Act or of any order or regulation made thereunder not having been complied with, may quash the order or any provision contained therein, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant.
3. Subject to the provisions of the last preceding paragraph, a compulsory purchase order shall not, either before or after it has been confirmed, be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever, and shall become operative at the expiration of six weeks from the date on which notice of its confirmation is published in accordance with the provisions of paragraph one of this Part of this Schedule.
4.Except by leave of the Court of Appeal, no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal under this Schedule.
5. This Part of this Schedule does not apply to an order which is provisional only until confirmed by Parliament.—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Sir R. GOWER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Schedule, in line 16, to leave out the words "thirty-three and," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty to."

I understand that the Minister is prepared to accept this Amendment.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Schedule agreed to.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Schedule, in line 79, to leave out the words "either before or."
This Amendment raises a matter of some importance, which is to reserve to the individual the right of questioning the whole action of the local authority in passing a resolution at the earliest opportunity, if he wishes to take a question to the court when the action is ultra vires. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), at an earlier stage referred to the constitutional question and said that a scheme might be questioned on its final approval but not before. The words of paragraph 4 of Part II of the proposed new Schedule are:
Subject to the provisions of paragraphs two and three of this Part of this Schedule, the validity of a scheme shall not, either before or after it has been approved or made, be called in question in any legal proceedings whatsoever,
I desire to leave out the words "either before or," that is to say, I desire to preserve the right to question the validity of a scheme at the earliest opportunity and before its final approval. To do so must be to the advantage of everybody concerned, if the local authority's action goes beyond the powers conferred by the Act. It must be to the advantage both of the local authority itself and of the person affected, to have a decision at the earliest possible time as to whether the proposed action is illegal or not. If it is illegal then the local authority can at once alter the scheme and make it legal; instead of spending time and trouble upon measures which may turn out to be ultra vires. The individual would be benefited, because he would be able to deal with his property instead of having it tied up. Between the passing of the resolution which is the commencement of the proceedings and the final approval of the scheme, two or three years may elapse, and it seems foolish that in a case such as my Amendment contemplates, everybody should do a loc of useless work on a scheme which
eventually is decided to be illegal. The Amendment would enable the question of legality or illegality to be raised in the courts at once.

Sir R. GOWER: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Schedule.

Sir H. YOUNG: I almost regret that the last Amendment which we have to consider to-night, is not one which I can recommend the House to accept, and that we have not had the happy ending to the tale which we might have desired. But I believe that the Amendment is based upon a misunderstanding as to the very full powers which are given in the Bill to the aggrieved person to test the validity of the scheme and also as to the reasons why those powers are denned in the way they are denned, by reference to the time at which the application can be made. As I am advised, the first difference between the scheme of the Bill and the proposal in the Amendment is that the scheme of the Bill provides for procedure by application, whereas my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would preserve what I may, with great diffidence, describe as the more old-fashioned right of procedure by injunction. Procedure by application is perhaps the more economical method.
The second difference is as to the stage at which the application may be made and I cannot help thinking that my hon. and learned Friend has got it actually the wrong way round. I think that the provision, of the Bill will prevent a waste of expenditure upon legal proceedings which may subsequently turn out to be quite unnecessary. What the Bill says is that you are not to have recourse to legal proceedings until you are sure that there
is something to have proceedings about, whereas my hon. and learned Friend would rather entice people to start legal proceedings at the stage of the development of a plan, and it might turn out in the long run, because the scheme was never approved or for some other reason, that they had no need to have recourse to their legal remedy at all. In these circumstances I trust that further examination will persuade my hon. and learned Friend to agree with me that on the whole the scheme in the Bill is the most practical, that it secures ample rights, that it is the most convenient method by which the aggrieved person may pursue his legal remedy, and that it secures it to him at the first moment that it is prudent and wise for him to undertake proceedings.

Amendment to the proposed Schedule negatived.

Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.

Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.